PROMOTION OF EMPLOYMENT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21761, 18 April 1936, Page 16

PROMOTION OF EMPLOYMENT

DEBATE ON THE BILL MR FORBES CRITICISES PROPOSALS MEN ON ITCK-AND-SHOVEL I WORK (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON. April 17. Parliament spent many hours to-day on a more or less leisurely debate on the second reading of the Hon. H. T. Armstrong’s Employment Promotion Bill. Many aspects of unemployment were discussed; but for the most part the arguments and views advanced were those heard so often by electors during the general election campaign. An interesting speech was given by the leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes), who mentioned that on the old basis it would cost the country £9.000,000 a year for the Government’s public works policy.

The Prime Minister (the Hon. M. J. Savage) was in good form, and made the House laugh often over his amusing political allusions. In the afternoon, the House listened closely to the Rev. A. H. Nordmeyer (Gov.. Oamaru), whose maiden speech showed that he should be one of »the Government’s main string of speakers. Resuming the debate, which was interrupted by the adjournment the previous evening, the Hon. R. Semple, Minister for Public Works, emphasised the necessity for men on public works to be given an incentive to put forth their best efforts. During the last four years, many of the men on relief work did not give of their best, said the Minister, but they were not to blame, for they were given no incentive to work. "The Bad Old Days” “Because of the number of men who were put on pick and shovel work, the last Government was accused of turning the country into a nation of navvies; but the new Government is f'oing to increase the number of men doing that sort of , work,” said the leader of the Opposition (Mr Forbes). He claimed that in increasing the number of men on public works and in the system of sustenance, the Government would not find a solution to unemployment. Mr Forbes mentioned reports that the Minister for Public Works intended to increase the number of men on public works to 30,000, under the conditions existing in what were known as “the bad old days,” When rates were low, the average cost of a man on public works to the country was £6 a week; under the new regime, when rates were increased, that average would be substantially higher; but under the old rate of £6, for the 30,000 men intended to be employed it would require £9,000,000 a year for public works alone. Mr Forbes assured the Labour Government of all possible support from the Opposition in its endeavours to solve unemployment. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo) criticised the absence from the bill of any promise that unemployment tax might be reduced. The speeches made by Labour candidates during the election campaign had led people to the justifiable conclusion that the tax would be decreased, but the Minister had stated that the tax was to remain as at present. Ship of State In a Storm Humorous reference to Opposition statements that the ship of state had weathered the storm because of the efforts of the last Government was made by the Prime Minister. “That the ship weatnered the storm is a credit to the ship and not to those who were at the helm,” said Mr Savage. “The Government, led by the leader of the Opposition, helped to cause the storm, for it reduced the wages of the people and made it impossible for them to buy the things they produced. The ship got through in spite of the last Government.” A Government member: It lost us crew. . . Mr Savage; Yes; and we are trying to get the ship off the rocks. (Laughter.) We will always have these periods of storm until we have £100,000.000 worth of goods to £100,000,000 worth of. service in producing them. The leader of the Opposition; What is Douglas credit? . Mr Savage: I don’t care what kind of credit it is. It is common sense. There was also laughter over a reference made by Mr Nordmeyer when he spoke. He quoted a remark by Mr Broadfoot, who had asked for some concrete examples which he could chew over out of the Governments proposals, A ... . , . “Far be it from me to criticise his taste; but if he is patient enough to wait for two and a half years he may have an opportunity of biting the dust,” said Mr Nordmeyer. “If the member for Waitomo waits, he will be furnished by the Minister for Public Works with concrete roads, concrete bridges, and concrete buildings. These will give him something to chew over, and, if necessary, to masticate.” Mr W. P. Endean (Nat, Parnell) warned the Government against adopting a policy which might conflict with world economy. He defended the work done by Government boards, and said that the British Labour Government’s scheme fo: the expansion of public works, under Miss Margaret Bondfield as Minister, had failed and had had to be abandoned. “What was the use of spending money in New Zealand on an asset which turns out to be a liability?” he asked. “Unreasonable Provisions” Criticising specific clauses in the bill, Mr Endean described as unreasonable the provision calling on persons to produce any particulars required by the department. The clause giving power to vary the rate of unemployment charge was contrary to the Labour policy, he said, and the people of the country had a right to know definitely what they were going to be expected to pay. A definite charge ought to be fixed rather than have the amount left open. Mr Endean said that the clause m the bill giving power to the Minister for Public Works to carry out work on any property seemed wrong in law, in that it did not provide for the consent of the owner of the property being obtained. Mr E. T. Tirikatene (Ratana, Southern Maori) congratulated the Government on abolishing the differentiation between Maori and pakeha relief workers, and appealed to the Government to do more for Maori women to save them from having to take work in Chinese market gardens. Other speakers were Messrs W. J. Lyon (Govt., Waitemata), R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs), C. L. Carr (Govt., Timaru), and H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson). Mr J. Hargest (Nat., Awarua) had the floor at the adjournment. The debate will be resumed on Tuesday afternoon.