The Matamata Record PUBLISHED MONDAY AND THURSDAY MONDAY, JULY 21, 1930. THE UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Matamata Record, Volume XIII, Issue 1140, 21 July 1930, Page 4

The Matamata Record PUBLISHED MONDAY AND THURSDAY MONDAY, JULY 21, 1930. THE UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

THE Government must be commended on introducing the Unemployment Bill so early in the session. Too often it- has been the habit of Governments to delay important measures until the middle-»of the session. Based mainly on the report of the Unemployment Committee, the Bill is one' which becomes a national measure in which all members should seek to assist the Government by constructive suggestion rather than destructive criticism for party purposes. The Bill may be divided into two sections. The first, in the setting up of a board, aims at constructive organisation. More important is it to abolish or minimise unemployment than to merely relieve it. The functions of the board are not merely to pay out sustenance allowances but to undertake the far bigger task of creation of work, to organise employment and bring about a better distribution of work. It is given unrestricted powers to investigate all questions affecting employment, explore new means of providing work, encourage the establishment or extension of industries, promote collaboration or co-operation between Departments of State, local bodies and other employers of labour, and train workers to fit them for employment. To the aims and ideals there can be no exception taken. It is in the practice that the trouble will arise. Much depends on the personnel of the board, and the extent of its success will be governed by the co-operation of Government departments, local bodies and private employers.

The second portion of, the Bill, dealing with sustenance, will lay itself open to considerable objection. It departs very materially from the committee’s suggestion. The levy on adult males is increased to 30 shillings a year and the contribution from the Consolidated Fund from one third to one half the board’s expenditure. This certainly simplifies the process of collection, but there is the objection that in placing all adults on the same footing it is penalising those with small incomes. While a graduated levy is fairer, it could only be arrived at by a percentage on income, such as was suggested in the committee’s report. Until the Government gives its reasons it is difficult to see the cause for the departure from the recommendations of the committee.