PROVISION OF WORK

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 183, 1 May 1936, Page 12

PROVISION OF WORK

Bill Discussed in Council LITTLE OPPOSITION SHOWN Little opposition by the voice and none by the vote marked the debate on the Employment Promotion Bill, the second reading of which was agreed to by the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. Opportunity was taken by several members to present their views on the solution of the unemployment problem. The Leader, Hon. M. Fagan, said the main purpose of the Bill was to abolish the Unemployment Board, which admittedly had done much good work during the six years of its existence, but whigh the Government considered had done many things with which it was unable to agree. The positive function of the BUI was the ultimate stimulation of employment through various channels, particularly in housing construction. ‘-When we start a housing scheme, as we shall do shortly,” said Mr. Fagan. "I anticipate that we will absorb six unemployed men for every one taken on under public works schemes.” The only contentious point in the Bill, declared the Hon. W. H. Mclntyre. (Nelson), was the abolition of the Unemployment Board, which had done valuable work during extremely (difficult years, particularly under the building subsidy scheme. He expressed satisfaction that the Government intended to institute a bold housing policy, but he was convinced that the only permanent solution of the unemployment problem was the absorption of the workless into secondary industries. ‘‘Started on Wrong Foot.” The Hon. F. E. Lark (Auckland) congratulated the Government on its decision to take direct control of unemployment administration. The former Government had started the board off on the wrong foot in handling the problem. There was not a local body in the country that had not exploited the situation, by taking advantage of the No. 5 scheme. The Bill before the Council allowed the Government to change the outlook and morale of men who were still out of work. He visualised the time when employers would engage all their employees through labour exchanges. .The Hon. R. Masters (Taranaki) said the previous Government had been charged with accentuating unemployment, the principal cause of which was the tremendous fall in the prices realised for the produce of the Dominion on world markets. It had been alleged that the previous administration had done little to place the unemployed back in productive work. The facts pointed in the other direction. It had aided the flax industry, the manufacture of woolpacks, the growing of tobacco, the production of gold, and had assisted in exploring the possibility of the establishment of irou and steel works by a subsidy. The building subsidy had, he believed, been responsible for the construction of buildings valued at £8,000,000 more than would have been erected without this form of help from the unemployment fund, and a marked stimulus had been imparted to employment as a result. .Mr. Lark had accused the late Government of starting on the wrong foot as far as its employment policy was concerned. “I don’t know whether Mr. Lark has his feet on the ground at all, or whether be is up in the sky,” said Mr. Masters. In supporting , the Bill the Hon. T. F. Doyle (Southland) said Labour had never charged tile former Government with causing unemployment initially, but held that its deflationary policy had accentuated the problem. The measure would not cure unemployment, but was a move toward that ideal. Disappointment that the Bill made uu mention of an agrarian settlement policy was expressed by the Hon. R. McCallum (Marlborough), who asked if the Government desired to become the sole employer. He submitted that the solution of the unemployment issue lay in the encouragement of private employment. The alternative clearly promised communistic legislation. Support for the Bill was given by the Hon. D. Bnddo (Christchurch) and the Hon. IV. Snodgrass (Nelson), the last-named urging greater encouragement of the tobacco-growing industry by tariff adjustment if necessary. No Labour Exchange. Mr. Lark's advocacy of employment through labour exchanges brought a protest from the Hon. C. J. Carrington (Auckland), who said that if legislation with that object came before the Council he would strenuously oppose it. Ho would support anything on democratic principles, but not on Communistic lines. Replying, Mr. Fagan said I he Government was taking steps to give a greater measure of help to the tobacco-

growing industry. As to housing, it was not the intention of the Government to become the sole employer, but to promote its .building programme through private enterprise. The board’s building subsidy had rendered good service in aiding employment. He had found that of all money spent on subsidised building no less than 83 per cent, had been paid out in the form of wages. “It never lias been the intention of the Government to insist that all employers shall visit, a labour exchange to engage their employees,” said Mr. Fagan in answer to Mr. Lark. Members: Hear, hear. The Bill was read a second time on (lie voices without dissent. The Council adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 10,30 this morning.