UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF BILL

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 July 1931, Page 5

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF BILL

SECOND READING CARRIED MINISTER ANSWERS CRITICISM [FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, July 7. The House of Representatives resumed at 2.30 p.m. to-day. In answer to a/ question by Coates, as to whether it was true that there would be no increments this year in public servants’ salaries, particularly on the Railways, the Prime Minister said the matter had not been considered by the Government, Mr Forbes moved for urgency on the Unemployment Amendment Bill. He stated that he would like to be able to get the second reading of the Bill through by the conclusion of the sitting to-night. To-morrow could then be devoted to the committee stages. The reason for urgency was to allow preparations to be made to get the new taxation measures put in hand, so they could be imposed from August 1. Urgency was accorded the Bill. The House then resumed the debate on the second reading. Mr McKeen complained that the Prime-Minister; had not-asked the assistance of Labour in framing the Bill, while he stated that he had conferred with others regarding a possible reduction in interest rates. The Government was not facing the unemployment situation, but merely dillydallying with it. The Minister of Labour: That is true of many local bodies. The Minister was right to a certain extent, Mr McKeen admitted, but the Government’s regulation regarding work to be done by the unemployed was preventing local bodies from grappling with the problem. Local bodies were in a good position, he continued, and they should find the difference between nine or twelve shillings and fourteen shillings, and carry out useful work. The present system of the Government paying the whole of the nine of twelve shillings was leading to the dismissal of hundreds of men who should be kept on by local bodies at award rates. Mr Downie Stewart said there were three points on which he desired the Government to give information: If it would do so, it might assist considerably in the passage of the Bill. The first point was, could the Government indicate its policy with regard to unemployment? He would like the Government to give a clear indication of what it was going to do. He would like to know how the Government’s share of the unemployment subsidy was going to be raised under the Budget. He stressed the fact that a sum of about 22 millions would have to be raised to meet the Government’s liabilities under the old and new schemes. The second point on which.the Government might give enlightenment was with regard to the flat rate levy. The fact that the unemployed were subject to this flat rate levy was causing considerable irirtation. The third point was with regard to finding work for women if they were Mr Smith: They will not be taxed if they are unemployed.

MR FORBES’ STATEMENT. Mr Forbes, replying, said the money raised would be used to meet the requirements of the people out of work. It had been said that there should be some special policy concerning unemployed women. He submitted this was one of the difficulties, but assured the House that through the money raised under the new measure, conditions for them would be greatly improved. With regard to the policy of the new Board, it would be asked to devote more attention to putting men in country districts. Concerning a question as to the personnel of the Board, it would be impossible to say who would comprise the Board when the Bill was not yet passed by the House. The money from the Consolidated Fund to subsidise the unemployment levy would be raised in the ordinary way from general taxation. Mr Fletcher said that they ought seriously to consider the lines on which the Bill was drafted. It was practically a recast of the old Bill. He believed that the problem of unemployment could be dealt with effectively, but not on the lines of the Government’s present measure. The trouble was they were making the measure a relief one instead of developmental. . When the House resumed in the Evening, the debate on the second reading was continued by Messrs W. Nash, J. A. Nash, Langstone, Black, Semple, Barnard and Rushworth. Mr Smith, in reply, expressed gratification at the sympathetic reception of the measure. The principal objections to the Bill seemed to be centred round the imposition of the levy on unemployed. Take, for instance, freezing workers, said the Minister. These men had well-paid work for part of the year, and when the season ended, relief work was provided for them for the first time in history. They could not be exempted from payment. If one class were exempted, all classes would have to receive the same- treatment.

He then proceeded to detail the work which had been carried out by the Unemployment Board. It had been suggested that it ought to be possible to pay union rates of wages for relief work. Would the House, he asked, be prepared to pay £4 a week to 45,100 unemployed for 50 weeks a year, making a total of nine millions? The purpose of the proposed flat rate levy was to keep in touch with every person entitled to pay the levy. A nominal rate of levy for the lowerpaid workers would not meet the position, because the Government wanted the money to provide work for the unemployed. In connection with the levy on women’s incomes, this was not a tax on women at all, but merely a tax on their income. It was no more unjust than the levy on men with whom women competed in indus; try. The proposal to absorb all the unemployed on land development schemes was impracticable. < The second reading was taken at 12.50, and the House adjourned till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow. FARMERS' UNION ATTITUDE. WELLINGTON, July 8. Taking the view that the present economic conditions in New Zea-

land were extraordinary, the Farmers’ Union Conference, to-day, arrived at the conclusion that an Unemployment Act was necessary as an emergency measure. Several remits having relation to unemployment were on the order paper, but the conference first disposed of the question whether or not there should be an Act of some description. Delegates severely criticised the present Act, particularly as its provisions affect the farming community, but all recognised the need for some measure to provide relief for the present large number- of unemployed. The next business of the conference: is to consider what form the Act should take.

The suggestion that a man should 'be automatically prohibited once his name appeared upon the unemployment register pay-sheet was made by Mr J. Cocker at a meeting of the South Taranaki executive of the Farmers’ Union. The money from which provision was made for the payment of the men had come from the taxpayers of the country, he said, and it was wrong that any of this should be selfishly spent on liquor. •

STATE FORESTRY SERVICE.

WELLINGTON, July 8

A deputation from the Forestry League waited on Mr Ransom to oppose the amalgamation of the State Forest Service with the Lands Department. Mr J. Deans, President of the League, said that .forestry should not be placed in a subsidiary position. The service could find a great deal of work for the unemployed. The Minister said that nothing final was decided. Both departments worked harmoniously, the officers in many instances covering the same ground. The Government must examine every opportunity for economy.

“DEPENDENTS” FRAUD.

BLENHEIM, July S.

James Cootes pleaded guilty to a charge of false pretences and was sentenced to a month’s hard labour. Accused had secured the sum of £9 17/- from the Havelock Unemployment Committee, by stating he was maintaining three children. He was thus given work for four days a week under the unemployment scheme, whereas he had no dependents and was entitled only to two days’ work a week. The Magistrate took a serious view of the case.

N.S. WALES POLITICS

LABOUR MANOEUVRES.

[BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.]

SYDNEY, July 7.

There were angry scenes .in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly today, when a Labourite, Mr. Kinsella, moved a motion of protest against the Legislative Council’s obstruction of the Government's legislation. Tho motion urged that a protest should be transmitted through the Governor, to the Dominions Office at London. The Opposition Leader, Mr. Bavin, declared that it was quite unprecedented for a private member to bring forward a motion involving a fundamental constitutional principle.

Mr. Lang replied that the private members had their rights, and they were perfectly entitled to speak as they thought fit; and, moreover, he agreed with Mr. Kinsella’s contention that an attempt was being made to govern the country through the newspapers and by the wealthy interests, which the Government would not tolerate.

Mr. Kinsella’s .motion was carried, on a strictly party division.

. LULL IN THE DISPUTE.

(Received July 8. 10 a.m.) SYDNEY, July 8

Tho Governor presided at another meeting of the Executive Council. No mention was made of appointments to the Upper House, or of the Constitutional controversy. Premier Lang was not present. The “Herald” says: It appears that Cabinet does not now propose to press immediately for appointments to the Council.

Constitutional authorities assert that the Dominions Office is not likely to interfere in the present controversy, and will regard it as being of a domestic character.

APPEAL TO DOWNING STREET.

LONDON, July 7.

The Game v. Lang conflict to-day entered Downing Street, and the result may necessitate British Cabinet action. Mr Willis called on Mr Thomas with a long memorandum from Mr Lang. It is believed that Mr Willis asked the British Government to mediate.

SAVINGS BANK RE-OPENING MR. LANG’S ATTITUDE SYDNEY, July 8. The “Telegraph” says: The reason for Mr. Lang’s suddent want of interest is the re-opening of the Government Savings Bank is unofficially revealed. It is stated that the terms upon which the Commonwealth will re-open the bank were submitted to Mr. Lang, with the following conditions for his acceptance: — (1) That he rejoin the Loan Council; (2) That the money owed to the Commonwealth by State be repaid: (3) That the money held on short call by the Government from the savings bank be repaid. In addition to these, it is believed that the Commonwealth imposed drastic conditions that operate subsequently as to payment of depositors. Mr. Lang’s proposition was that the Commonwealth should give him the money to reopen, the bank, now in the Savings Bank. The Commissioner in Melbourne is carrying on the negotiations. Meantime, the depositors are patiently waiting for their own money. MR. LANG’S SIGNATURE CANBERRA, July 8. It is learned that Mr. Lang actually signed, on behalf of his State, the agreement reached at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in Melbourne in May. This agreement is embodied in the Debt Conversion Bill, which was introduced in the House of Representatives.