THE NEW FUND

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 3, 3 July 1931, Page 7

THE NEW FUND

TOTAL OF £2,185,000

POSITION ABOUT LEVY

The estimated yield from tho special taxation under the Unemployment Amendment Bill for the period from Ist August next to 31st March, 1932, will be £2,185,000, according to figures given by the Prime Minister (the Bight Ho.n. G. W. Forbes). Mr. Forbes stated that the estimated revenue would be as under:— £ Outstanding levy (June-July, 1931) 36,000 Wages tax stamps ......... 450,000 Other income stamps' 292,000 Levy of 5s per quarter 285,000 Government subsidy 1,092,000 Total'..' £2,155,000 The expenditure, including- the £25,----000 over-spent by the board up to last month, was estimated at the rate of £55,000 a week.-; EXHAUSTED FUNDS. Dealing with, tho position of the Unemployment Fund, prior to the collapse of the No.'s scheme, the Prime Minister stated that the expenditure up to 20th June amounted to £846,----679. In addition administrative expenses accounted for £5338, fees and travelling expenses £2087, and loans .£9650, representing a grand total of £863,754. On the revenue side the levy had yielded £415,509, and with the Government subsidy £838,756. Tho estimated deficiency at 20th June was £24,998. "How many months does that cover!" queried the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, (Reform, Dunedin West). The Prime Minister: "Six months." Mr. Forbes said that when notice was received of the exhaustion of the board's funds ho had considered it advisable that the country should know what tho exact position was, and from all over New Zealand protests against the discontinuance of No. 5 schema had been reeoived. Labour members:."And quite rightly, too." ... j The Prime Minister: "It was just as well to let tho country know what the position was. We found there was a strong belief that the scheme should go on.". "It was better than no work," interposed Mr. AV. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier). Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon): '' The alternative was starvation.'' Mr. H. G. Dickie (Reform, Patea): "Tho trouble was suspending tho scheme without notice." LEVY INCREASE INEQUITABLE. Continuing, the Prime Minister said that in the opinion of tho Government, an increase in tho levy would have been inequitable, and the principle of the' wages tax had been adopted. Although a large measure of relief was provided under the Bill, the Government could not expect, in view of the state of the national finances, to provide everybody with full work. If that were attempted the scheme would last for a certain time and then break down entirely. The proposals before tho House, however, were an indication that a determined, effort was being made to deal with unemployment. "I don't suppose tho Bill will be considered satisfactory by a great many people," added Mr. Forbes, "but it. will bo recognised' that we are doing as much as we can in tho present state of the country's finances." He made it clear that the taxation would operate only until'3lst July, 1P32, when Parliament could deal with the position again. RECONSTRUCTION OF BOARD. Mr. Forbes said that tho obJßet of the reconstruction of tho Unemployment Board was ■ A. Labour member: "To get rid ol'l it." The Minister: "No. It was felt ■ that far moro effective work could bo performed with a smaller personnel. The question of representation limits the choice of men for the position. We want tho best men we can "get to administer tho funds." Mr. W. L. Martin (Labour, Raglan): "The local bodies will do it more efficiently.'' Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): "It is better than your Kailway Board." Mr. Forbes said there would be a far more effective board if the choice were loss restricted. As.far as he was concerned, no appointments he had ever made were influenced, by party political considerations. "I want the best men I can get to carry out tho work," he said. "I don't care twopence what their politics are." (Hear, hear.) The Ltiader of tho Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland): "Would you apply that" to Parliament?" Mr. Forbes: "The very fact that we aro horc shows that we are the best men." (Laughter.) It was felt, added Mr. Forbes, that more energy could be infused into j the question of land development1, and