BY WHAT MEANS?

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 56, 4 September 1934, Page 8

BY WHAT MEANS?

The proposed exemptions from unemployment taxation, most of which can be heartily approved, require legislation to bring them into operation. The reduction of the emergency unemployment charge, however, can be made without an amendment of the law. Nevertheless, in view of the objections raised in some quarters it is desirable that the reduction should be discussed by Parliament before it is ordered, and this must be done quickly if tho change is to lake place at the end of this month. As the proposal is contained in the Budget, members of Parliament have the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it in the Budget debate. Before they do so the Government should supply more facts. As we pointed out on August 25 the calculations made by the Minister of Finance made it appear that, even with the proposed remissions and exemptions, there would be available from the Unemployment Fund this year about £500,000 more than was spent last year. But we asked if the whole of this money would be available. On April 1, 1933, the fund had a credit of £621,500; but the Minister of Employment stated the commitments, including those, falling due after March 31, as £627,000. Some of these commitments , Avould be properly chargeable against this year's revenue, but ivhctlier considered a charge aguinst the credit

or the new revenue lhey would reduce the sum available for expenditure this year. Of course, there would be a similar carry-forward of commitments next year as compensation.

Having regard to the necessity, often stressed, of keeping the fund in credit and to the earmarking of £250,000 for assistance to industries, it is not clear that the fund will be so strong as to permit an increase of benefits. It is on this point that more information is desired. Many people upon whom the wage-tax presses heavily are doubtful whether they should accept relief before the unfortunate workless. Can the Government lower the tax and yet do something more helpful and constructive—especially constructive? In asking this question we must admit that the Unemployment Board has not been idle or content to accept a policy of mere alleviation of distress. No small part of its present expenditure is designed to serve a constructive purpose. The small-farm plan comes within this category, and it is instructive to note the Budget statement that the main difficulty met with by the Small Farms Board has been that of acquiring suitable land at prices in keeping with productive capacity. Removal of this difficulty, ure suggest, is possible only by dealing with the causes which are keeping land above its real productive value. The small house subsidy scheme is also constructive inasmuch as it is hoped that it will give just that stimulus which will lead to unaided private expenditure. There is the constructive element also in the subsidised land improvement and development schemes.

It should not be forgotten, either, that the £250,000 set aside for the assistance of industries, and particularly the development of new industries, will open up new means of employing labour. It is, therefore, not correct to regard this money as not available for the relief of the workless. If the board is wisely guided in spending this money, and if private enterprise seizes the opportunity lo make a step forward the workless will have greater relief than if the amount were doled out in sustenance. Nevertheless, allowing for this work and for the further plans, there arc probably many thousands of people who will support the call made by the Rev. A. A. Armstrong for a more determined endeavour, and will hold with him that the sufferings, of the dependants of the unemployed should be alleviated before financial relief is given elsewhere. The sustenance scale has recently been improved. Can-a further improvement be made if the tax is reduced? And what plan is there for changing the order so that relief will more speedily give way to rehabilitation of the workless? The main responsibility lies upon the Unemployment Board, but it is not a sole responsibility. The Minister of Employment is a man as humane as any of his

critics, and the Aeling Minister is no less anxious In discharge llio duly laid upon him. Criticism "which charges thorn wilh indifference is distinctly unfair. Wo suggest dial il could he met, at least in part, by adopting the suggestion made sonic months ago for a mod ing which would invite the co-operation of other parlies, and this might well he cxlended to include representatives of social agencies.

The Unemployment Hoard has accumulated much information upon the work done in oilier countries. Il has also wide experience of the difficulties encountered in New Zealand. If it were to place this information before those who are ready to help it coidd prevent the conflict and the waste of energy caused by advocacy of schemes which have proved impracticable elsewhere. What is more important, if all attended the meeting with good will and put aside preconceived ideas, the foundation could' be laid for a new effort. Many a plan which would be hopeless in face of disunity could be successfully operated if it had the support of a really united people.