LEVY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 284, 27 August 1930, Page 12

LEVY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT

Flat Tax or Graduated Scale? QUESTION REFERRED TO CABINET ■ Long Debate Still Unfinished There was a calmer atmosphere in the House of Repiesentatives yesterday .when discussion opened on the Committee stages of the Unemployment Bill. Indications were not lacking that the Bill will be subjected to extremely close scrutiny before it passes on the Statute Book and although members repeated much of what had already been said in the four previous debates the time has come for each clause to run the gauntlet of criticism and possible amendment. An interesting development occurred after, the Committee had passed from the short title discussion, which lasted all day, progress being reported when the contentious flat rate tax was reached. In deference to the wishes -Of the Labour Party, whose members were anxious that the Government should consider the possibility, of substituting a graduated tax for the flat rate levy of 30/- which’ it is proposed to make upon all males over the' age of 20, the question was referred to Cabinet for consideration. This point and the inclusion of women under the Bill proved the main concern of Labour speakers, who urged that the suggested flat rate levy was unfair. During the evening the Minister of Labour, Hon. S. G. Smith, who has charge of the Bill, announced that he was willing that the section relating to the levy should be reviewed and he requested that consideration of it should be deferred until after Cabinet had had a chance of going into the question. ' Progress was reported after the fourth clause had been passed. Earlier in the day the Minister had told the House that any system of graduation would be far too costly and that for this reason he was not prepared to adopt it. It appears that the Bill will be before the House for some days altogether. ' Shortly before the adjournment at 10.30 last evening the Judicature Amendment Bill, which originated in the Legislative Council, was introduced by the Minister of-Justice, Hon. J. G. Cobbe, and read a second time, then-being referred to the Statutes Revision Committee on-the plea of members that further consideration should be given to the proposal, of the measure to alter the system ol prescribing Supreme Court rules. The Law Practitioners Amendment. Bill and the New Zealand University Amendment Bill were, also read a second time, :pro forma, and referred to this committee. The House will be occupied this afternoon with answers to questions, which have accumulated for several weeks. The evening will be devoted to private members’ Bills.

..A denial that by objecting to the sustenance clause of the Unemployment Bill the Reform Party was depriving men of any benefits was made by Mr. R. A. .Wright (Ref., Wellington Suburbs). He said he was not opposed to a sustenance allowance if no legitimate work could be found by the proposed Unemployment Board. There should be a definite instruction to the board that if a man received sustenance he should perform some work for it. The question of reducing wages did not enter into the argument at all. For the sake ' of the men themselves and for that of the country as a whole the unemployed who received monetary assistance should be made to work. “I may be asked where work is to be found,” Mr. Wright said. “I say that there is riot a municipal body from the North Cape to the Bluff which could not find work that would be useful in its own district. It should be insisted upon that this board should enter into an arrangement ’ whereby, if there is no ordinary work, these men should do work for municipalities.” Even were this work conducted at a loss, he said, it would be worth while, for there was nothing more demoralising than that a man should accept money without giving anything in return, The experience 'of hospital boards was that when a man who objected to accepting charity was in the erid forced to do so, his moral fibre was broken. It was therefore to the benefit of the ..man himself that he should be given useful work. The sustenance proposals could not be called a real form of insurance, Mr. Wright Said. An insurance fund was one to which the persons concerned contributed and so rendered themselves competent 1 to receive - payments in time of heed. The sustenance levy was totally 'different. For one thing there would be all sorts of exemptions, while the great majority of those who paid the levy would never be even likely to need sustenance under the Bill. j The Exclusion of Women. “I think that for an illogical speech the one we have just listened to takes the bun,” declared Mr. M. J. Savage (Lab., Auckland West). Although the provisions in the Bill fell a long way short of the. mark, they at least filled up some of the gaps. He would like to hear some logical reason for the exclusion of women i from the benefits of the Bill. When women took part in earning a livelihood in same fields and in the same factories as men, where was the object of their exclusion from a Bill which provided for sustenance when out of employment? It appeared as if there was ample room for an improvement in that respect. • “I trust that the House is not going to be influenced because the Special Committee did nothing,” continued Mr. Savage. “I feel sure that if the Government were now to include wotnen, a big majority in this House would.be in favour of it. I hope that the Government will see its way clear to introduce a graduated system so that people will contribute according to their ability to pay. It will be said that the people to get the benefit are the working men. I deny that. There is. the interest of the whole community involved under this Bill. The flat rate Is not just, arid cannot be defended. If women, are going to be excluded, the Government has not heard the last of it.. We need better excuses than we have heard for their exclusion. It is not only a question of benefiting women, but , society as a whole.” Problem Not Permanent. * ' Mr. A. Harris (Ref., Waitemata) said he would like to see a clause in the Bill limiting its operation to three years. He did not think they had reached the stage when unemployment was a permaneut problem. To place a permanent measure on the Statute Book would lead one to assume that unemployment was to be with us for all time. In his opinion unemployment was a passing phase and the operation of the Bill should be limited. ' The Minister of Labour. Hon. S. G. Smith: If you are right the Bill will limit itself. How Government Will Gain. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) hoped the Government would reconsider the proposal in regard . to the flat tax. Pointing out that the Government’s contribution to the Unemployment Fund was to be £400,000, Mr. Armstrong said .the cost of unemployment relief last year was shown in the Budget to be £1,400,000. Thus the Government was going to gain to the extent of a million if the proposals in the Bill . Were given effect to. “At the Cros# Roads.” The suggestion that the Bill should be known as on Employment Bill, and as an Employment Act when it reached the Statute Book, was made by Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Ind., Grey Lynn). “I think we should have a Ministry of Employment,” he said. “Unemployment cannot be treated as a side line to the Ministry of Labour or any other Ministry. This question is one to which a Minister should devote all his time. We have now arrived at the cross roads and the next three years are going to decide whether we are going to progress or not. The setting up of four economic committees in different parts of the Dominion was advocated by Mr. Fletcher as being preferable to the proposed Unemployment Board. The committees should be representative of the importers, manufacturers, primary producers, and labour organisations. He moved as an amendment: “That the name Unemployment Act be deleted and that of Employment Act be substituted for it in the first clause of the Bill?’ Mr. E. A. Ansell (Ref., Chalmers) hoped that a serious effort would be made to establish new industries. that would provide work of a profitable nature for both worker and employer. “I am quite satisfied. that jwny fow

of the workers will object to the. payment of the levy.” said the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland. ‘‘This Bill will make some provision for those to-day in a condition of dire distress. It provides sustenance only when work is denied. With the workers paying their 30/-, they will pay into the fund to make provision for unemployment among themselves. Every man who pays in to the fund is providing insurance for himself. The people who pay will be contributing to economic stability in New Zealand. The Bill has been discussed by a conference' called by the Alliance of Labour, representing 80,000 workers of this Dominion, and its attitude toward the proposals was in line with that taken by myself and my colleagues on the second reading. I have hopes that before the House is finished with this Bill important changes will have been made in it by mutual agreement.’’ Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) said he still could not understand why the Government had not included women under the Bill. He thought the Government bad been a little lazy in this respect. There was snrely no reason why women earning good salaries should, not be included. They had a social obligation, and it also had to be remembered that there were many women out of work who should have the benefits of the Bill’s provision. Treatment of ex-Soldiers.

Mr. W. H. Field (Ref., Otaki) said he was in sympathy with the proposal to call the measure the Employment Bill, as its main function was to fine] work. His main consideration at the moment related to the Government’s intentions concerning returned soldiers. There would be one returned soldier on the board, and it was not doubted that able ex-soldiers would receive the same treatment as anyone else. Some considered that these men should have preferential 'treatment. The most serious point related to ex-soldiers who, as they advanced in years., were unable.to work through war disabilities. He hoped that a Bill would be brought down to give effect to the recommendations of the Returned Soldiers’ Rehabilitation Commission.

Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central). said Mr. Wright did not believe in the sustenance allowance. Mr. Wright: Oh I yes I do. , . Mr. E. J. Howard (Lab.. Christchurch South): Yes, he does; no he doesn’t. Contributory System.

Mr. Fraser said the Labour movement had for years advocated a contributory system to- deal with unemployment, but it was not in accord with the present proposed system. Labour asked the Government to make the levy.upon a graduated scale. The flat rate was unfair, and it was against all reasonable consideration that, as a Minister had said, a graduated levy would prove too expensive to collect. Mr. A. W. Hall (Ref., Hauraki) considered that land development would have to be a prominent feature of the Unemployment Board’s work. Unemployment was the effect of economic instability and basic principles would have to be dealt with if the whole question of the country’s workless army were to be solved. He hoped the board would not look on the payment of sustenance as its chief function. It should be merely subsidiary and resorted to as a final step. The opinion that the views of the member for Wellington Suburbs on the ques“tion of sustenance bad been misunderstood was expressed by Mr. J. A. Nash (Ref., Palmerston). As he understood it, the view expressed was that notwithstanding .the fact that sustenance was paid' to a man, some work should be found for him. The Bill was a new departure and he thought it would be impossible to satisfy the whole House.

People From Abroad. Mr' Wright contended that a clause should be inserted in the Bill to deal with people coming from overseas. He suggested that before a man received benefits he should be a resident of New Zealand for a number of years, possibly three or five years. The principle was One adopted in other New Zealand legislation. It would take the country all its time to look after its own unemployed people with--out providing for those arriving from overseas. Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) : How many years would you sug"est? The Leader of the Labour Party: Twenty-five. Mr. G. C. Munns (U., Roskill) : What about one year? Mr. 'Wright: I want to be reasonable, but something is absolutely necessary to restrict immigration. Mr. W.‘ D. Lysnar (Ind. Ref., Gisborne) said there should be provision whereby sustenance could not be claimed without working for it. The proposed payment of £1 was .to high; they should not have gone beyond the English rate of 17/-. The opinion that the functions of the Unemployment Board as set out in the Bill were too limited was expressed by Mr. R. McKeon (Lab., Wellington South). He agreed with the principle of the Bill, although there were several clauses that he was not by any means satisfied with. A Hardship Clause. Mr. C. E. Macmillan (Ref.. Tauranga) considered that a hardship clause should be inserted in the Bill to provide for exemptions from payment of the leky. Mr. I). G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon), expressed the opinion that the Minister would be meeting the wishes of Labour i members, the members of his own party, and probably some of the Reform members if he agreed to a graduated levy. Mr. J. A. Young (Ref.. Hamilton) suggested that there should be some provision whereby wages paid for the breaking-in of land could be subsidised. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington) asked that consideration be given to the-position of casual workers, such as those on the waterfront. A Nominated Board. Mr. D. Jones (Ref., Mid-Canterbury) daimed that the lenv of 30/- .was not a

flat rate tax at all. A very small pcrcen-' tage of those who would pay the- tax were going to receive any benefit from it. The payments into the unemployment fund from the Consolidated Fund represented the proceeds of graduated taxation. The • taxable community was already paying heavy graduated taxation. Mr. Jones hoped the proposal to appoint a returned soldiers’ representative on the board would not be proceeded with, seeing that returned soldiers had been cut out of the Bill. A nominated board so that the Minister could carry out his own policy was favoured by Mr. Jones. A nominated board, he said, would be far more effective. The danger of the present proposal was that the Minister would be overwhelmed on the board. Casual Workers. “The question raised in regard to casual workers,” said Mr. Jones, “makes it evident how very careful the Minister has to be. I suggest the advisability of bringing an army pay book system in. Workers earning so much could then be disqualified as far as sustenance is concerned. With such a system the Government would be in a position to know if men were wasting their money and then coming on the funds for mantenance in slack periods of the year.” Mr. Fletcher’s amendment was lost on the voices.