UNEMPLOYMENT BILL PASSES

Evening Star, Issue 20585, 10 September 1930, Page 2

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL PASSES

k LONG SITTING LABOUR AMENDMENT MAKES STRANGE BEDFELLOWS [l’kom Ook Parlumsktari Kirowra*.] WELLINGTON, September 9, Urgency was accorded the - passage of tho Unemployment .-Bill, which, was further considered in committee of the House to-night. The clause dealing with tho appointment of associate members of tho board was passed with an amendment moved by the Minister (Mr Smith), providing that co-opted members should have full standing but no right to vote. Two amendments submitted by tho Minister were inserted in tho clause dealing with tho subsidiary functions of the board. The first provided authority to grant assistance not only to enable new works to bo undertaken, but also to enable existing works to bo carried on. The second amendment made provision tor power to grant assistance to developmental and v other works instead of duly developmental work as originally prbP °Au amendment was moved by Mr U. Semple stipulating that tho wages paid on all works carried out or subsidised under tins section should be. subject to award or agreement rates ol wages. . . . The Chairman of Committees ruled tho amendment out of order, on the "round that it involved ail appropiigtion, but at the request of Mr I’. Fraser (Wellington Central) the Speaker s niling was sought. Tho Speaker pointed out that even if the amendment involved an extra charge on tho Unemployment Fund it would not involve an extra charge on tho Consolidated Fund. It was therefore in order. Tho Leader of the Opposition J. G. Coates) said ho did not think it would bo wise to make such a stipulation as the amendment contained. Tho board should bo felt plenty of scope. Mr H. T. Armstrong i, Christchurch East) contended that tbo effect of tho failure to make some such amendment would be to undermine tho Arbitration Court system. , , ... Mr Semple asserted that tho object of the amendment was to protect the workers against unscrupulous employers. The Minister said ho could not accept the amendment. Ho could assure tho House, however, that as chairman of tho board he would tako ample precaution to seo that the workers did not suife/at the hands of unscrupulous employers. Mr Semple’s amendment was defeated by ‘la votes to 22. , Mr F. Langstone (Waimanno) raised, an objection to tho funds raised largely from the contributions of workers being used to make grants of loans to enable persons to undertake developmental or other works. He contended that such assistance should bo confined to loans. 1 ...k

Tho clause was passed. , When tho sustenance clause was under" consideration'Mr Coates moved to add a proviso that no sustenance should he paid except in cases of ill-health unless tho recipient worked in return for tho money on tho basis of tho Arbitration Court rate of wages where applicable. Tbo proviso would not come into effect until six months after the passing of tbo Bill. He contended that it would be a bad principle to pay money for nothing. He admitted it would be difficult to find work at first, and it was for that reason ho suggested that provision should not come into effect for tho first six months after tho passing mf tho Bill. 'Mr H. E. Holland said that the only interpretation he could plate on the amendment was that there should ho no sustenance if there was no work, while tho Bill provided that sustenance should be paid only where work could not be provided. The amendment would dcstrov tho whole principle of the Bill. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) pointed out that there was no provision anywhere in tho Bill that sustenance should be paid only in cases where tho applicant had no.means. Mr Smith said it was hoped that once the board was in full operation there would bo very little need to pay sustcnancc. Tho amendment was lost ,on the voices. Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland West) then-moved an amendment altering tho wording of tho clause from “ No sustenance allowance shall bo paid to any person who is not a contributor to tho unemployment fund ” to “ No sustenance allowance shall ho paid to any person who is not registered for employment,” with the object of providing that persons who at present arc out of employment and could not afford to pay tho contribution should not for that reason bo debarred from the benefits of the fund. Tbo amendment was rejected by 40 votes to 26.

Mr M'Kccn (Wellington South) moved that the period of unemployment before which the sustenance allowance was paid should bo reduced from fourteen ttf six days. This was defeated by 46 votes to 17. An amendment moved by Mr Savage, providing that tho sustenance allowance might ho paid for twenty-six instead of thirteen consecutive weeks, met a similar fate by 41 votes to 20. Tho Minister thou-moved an addition to the clause of the provision that on such a recommendation being made by the board tho sustenance allowance might bo paid to any unemployed contributor to tho fund, notwithstanding that tho period of his unemployment was less than fourteen days or that he had been already in receipt of tho sustenance allowance for more than thirteen consecutive weeks. He pointed out this would nicet the objections that had been raised by the deputation ol waterside workers. It would obviate cases of casual workers or intermittent workers being deprived of the benefits of tho fund in consequence of a few hours’ work.*

Tho amendment was adopted. Mr Barnard urged that refusal to grant tho sustenance allowance in oases where tho worker declined to accept employment should not bo used as a means of strike-breaking. The Minister said he would like tho opportunity of looking into tho matter. Ho mentioned that there was another point of view to bo considered.- If a man wont out on strike ho would not have tho right to come along to tho hoard to get sustenance. Ho, would have the matter investigated with a view to tho insertion elan amendment in tho Legislative Council or some other provision by means of the issue cf regulations to meet tho position. - Mr Armstrong pointed out that it was desired that the Bill should not. bo a. weapon either for the'striker or tor tho strike-breaker.

An amendment moved by Mr Barnard on (ho subject was withdrawn, in view of the Minister's undertaking. On the motion of tlio Minister, an amendment was adopted providing that no sustenance -allowance he paid unless the recipient had had six months’ residence in Now Zealand. An amendment by Mr Howard that the sustenance allowances should he fixed sums instead of sums not exceeding the amounts specified in the Bill, was rejected by 41.. votes to 10. Another amendment moved by Air Howard seeking to fix the maximum amount of sustenance allowance payable to a, contributor to the fund at 30s, instead of 21s, was defeated by 41 votes to 18.

Mr Jordan moved that the allowance in respect to any child of a contributor should he increased from 4s to os. This was rejected by 37 votes to 19. An amendment submitted by the 'Minister providing that, at tho discretion of tho board, tho allowance mightbo paid to tho wife of a contributor, or to some other member of tho family, was accepted, and tho clauso was passed. A new clauso was inserted granting authority for an advance of £IOO,OOO from tho Consolidated Fund to tho unemployment fund to meet tho immediate requirements. Tho committee stage having been completed, tho Bill was reported to tho House.

A TACTICAL MOVE. WELLINGTON, September 10. A. tactical move by tho Labour Party after tho Bill had passed the committee stage had unexpected results in tho House of Representatives early this morning. It was intended to take tlio third reading, but Mr Holland (tho Labour Leader) moved to recommit tlio measure, and found ample support in speeches from the Reform Party. Sir Holland explained that his action was duo to anxiety to get the fiat tax provision recast and the exclusion of females reconsidered. Air Ransom (Acting Prime Minister) pointed out that the Bill had been very freely debated and divisions taken on many .clauses. It was the Government's desire to pass tho Bill to assist in relieving those unable to obtain the work to which they were entitled. “ It will bo unfortunate if tho Bill is recommitted, because I will take it as an indication that the House does not desire the Bill in its present form, notwithstanding that the House lias voted frequently upon it.” Messrs Young, Kyle, Burnett, and Dickie, from the Reform side, announced their intention to support tho Labour amendment, Mr Dickie declar ing that the time was not ripo for such a measure.

Air Lysnar (Gisborne) suggested that something had to bo done with unemployment, and tho Government would bo justified in abandoning the Bill if the amendment were carried.

Air Eraser (Wellington Central) discussed what would happen if the amendment were passed. Tho Government would have to take tho responsibility for losing tho Bill, and tho Labour members had no such intention. There was the Prime Minister’s promise that no amendment would ho regarded as a iio-eoulideiieo tost, but that the whole-Bill was in tho hands of the House. Tho Labour Party would appreciate assistance from Reform, much as it depreca'ted their motives. Air Smith (Minister of Labour) declared that the Labour opposition had landed itself in a pretty pickle. Every promise of the Prime Alinistcr had boon kept. Tho Hate levy clauso was postponed at Labour’s request for consideration of a graduated levy, and tho Bill had been discussed eleven times If unemployment was to bo more, acute, surely there was more reason than ever to improve the organisation to meet it. Ho complained that after all tho Government’s efforts an unfair attack should he made on it. The division on Mr Holland’s amendment was taken at 2.5 a.m;, a significant apectaolo being tho hesitancy of the Reform Party to move into the lobby. Ultimately members left their scats, but only four cast their votes with the Labour Party. THE DIVISION. The result of the division was the rejection of Air. Holland’s proposal by 35 votes’to 25, as under.—For tho Amendment (25). — Armstrong AP’Comh.s Barnard AlacAlillan Burnett Alartin Chapman Alassey Dickie Nash, W. Fraser O’Brien Hall Parry Holland, H. E. Savage Howard Semple Jordan Sullivan Kylo Wright Langstono Young Al'Kocn ' * ' —Against the Amendment (35). — Anseli ■ Lysnar Bitehcner APDonald Black APPhersou Bodkin ATakitanara Broadfoot Alunns Clinkard Murdoch Coatos Nash, J. A. Cobbo Ngata do la Perrolle Ransom Donald Rnshworth Fnde a it Smith Fletcher Stallvvorlhy Harris Sykes Heal/ Voiteh Hogan Ward Holland, H. Wilkinson Linklatcr Williams Lye ■ —Pairs. — For tho Amendment: Carr, Alunro, and Alason. Against tho Amendment: Atmore, Stewart, and Poison. Members thou placed on record the views that had been expressed during tho committo stage, after which tho Bill was read a third time and passed. Tho House roso at 3.30 a.m. till 2.30 this afternoon.