PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 182, 4 July 1931, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. ADDRESS-IX-REPLY DEBATE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 3. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. Resuming the debate on the Address-in-Reply, Hon. G. J. Garland said that interest rates were too high and the sooner the Government insisted on the banks paying a percentage on daily balances the better it would be. He regretted that secondary industries were languishing for want of capital. Referring to the fact that there were 337 local bodies in New Zealand with power to levy rates, be said that he would like to see at least 200 of them abolished. He expressed himself as an opponent of fusion and said that the two main parties had no mandate from the people to come together. Fusion had not been, altogether a success during the war and he ventured to say that it would not have been heard of if the Labour Party were still supporting the Government. Hon. W. H. Mclntyre said chat it was time the Government stepped in and controlled borrowing bv local bodies. He hoped the Government would place increased taxation on the shoulders of those able to bear it. He defended coupon trading and simeested a postponement of the licensing poll. He expressed regret that a Bible-in-Schno's Bill had been introduced ‘‘in another place” and indicated that he wou'd oppose it on the ground that if it was wanted by the people it should have been introduced by the Government.

The adjournment was moved bv Hon. tV. Farnsbaw. and the Council rose at 4.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF BILL. SECOND READING DEBATE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 3. When the House of Representatives resumed this afternoon after the luncheon adjournment, tile debate on the second reading of the Unemployment Amendment Bill was continued. Mr D. G. Sullivan said that if the tax had been imposed in the first place on the principle of the ability to pay, the Act would have worked better and more funds would have been raised, making the suspension of the No. 5 scheme unnecessary. The basis of-the present Bill was not a right one, for 3d in the £1 was.not strictly equitable. However, the method proposed was nearer the correct basis than that originally laid down. Mr D. McDougall said he did not like to see relief workers paying the levy, but what else was to bo done when money was difficult to getf He advocated giving the unemployed land for nothing ana paying them to bring it into cultivation on the understanding that, on paying hack what the State had expended, they would be given the title deeds. The labour laws must be altered to give l'reeddin of contract between employer and employee, he added. Mr F. Waite expressed the opinion that New Zealand’s imports were excessive, and suggested tnat it might be necessary to prohibit certain classes. There were miners, sawmillers and woolTen workers out or employment, and a check on imports would stimulate these industries. The suggestion for a prohibition of certain imports might sound drastic, but drastic measures were required. Of course, there would have to be a regulation against unfair pr ices, but this could easily be framed. There was no reason for going outside New Zealand for timber or coal, and more use could bo made of flax. The finest woollen goods could be manufactured in New Zealand, and it would do no harm to stop the importation of these articles for two years.

Mr W. E. Parry referred to the statements that the unemployment funds were to be used to give benefits to tiie unemployed, and said that surely they could not call the relief works benefits. Every man, woman and child deserved a living. He would like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition gave full support and approval to the clause dealing with the levy being made on relief workers. lit. Hon. J. G. Coates: It would be preferable that the levy on relief workers should be avoided.

Mr Parry went on to advocate the payment of sustenance. Mr J. T. Hogan said lie considered that the only failing in connection with the Unemployment Board’s schemes had been that there was insufficient money to carry them out. The big problem of the future was getting the unemployed back into profitable avenues of employment. The provision of money was only a circumstance. Ho advocated the development of secondary' industries by means of subsidies and Customs .protection. He thought this year would see the last of tlie. slump so far as New Zealand was concerned. LAND DEVELOPMENT NEEDED. lion. E. A. Ransom said that now it was proposed to place a much larger fund at the disposal of the board, it should lie possible for it to employ men in work that would ultimately constitute a benefit to the Dominion, and in that connection land development would bo one of the principal tasks. There had been the utmost co-operation between the board and tho Lands Department, and that co-operation would continue.

The board would be able to assist in the direction of tho development of land belonging to private owners. Provision was made in the bill to enable it to do this. Tho Lands Department, on the other hand, had no such power. Continuing, the Minister said that the department had in mind a list of idle sections that it believed could be successfully farmed, and proposals would be placed before the board for putting men on to develop these holdings. He believed that in the case of a number of large farms there were portions which were actually waste lands because the owners were not in a financial position to bring them into use. He suggested that the board might get into touch with the owners with the object of the aenuisition of these portions bv the Government for development. The Minister denied Mr H. E. Holland’s imputation that the Bill had been framed to meet the wishes of tho Reform Party, and said that as far as ho knew the Leader of the House had received no suggestions at all from outside. Mr R. A. Wright expressed tho opinion that men who were exempted from payment of the. levy because of hardship should not be debarred from receiving employment under the Act. lie hoped no policy of wholesale) dismissals was contemplated by tho Railways Board. Ho had been informed from an outside source that it was intended to dispense with the services of 900 men. He trusted that the Railways Board would not add to the difficulties of the unemployment problem in this way. Mr R. Me Keen criticised the wages tax, contending that it did not spread the harden evenly. The debate was interrupted by the

rising of the House at- 5.30 n.m. until 2.30 on Tuesday. PAYMENTS BY WOMEN. POSITION MADE CLEAR. WELLINGTON, July 4. In view of the doubt that appears to have arisen as to the position of women under the Unemployment Amendment Bill; the following official explanation was issued yesterday morning: ‘•'All women excepting domestics in receipt of salary or wages are liable for the wages tax to the same extent as men. A distinction, however, is made between men and women regarding taxation on income other than salary or wages. “With respect to income derived from sources other than salary or wages, it is provided that women who were liable to make returns of income for the year which ended, on March 31, 1931—that is, women with incomes of £250 a year and over, and including those who did not furnish returns, although they should have done —are to be taxed at the rate of one penny in every 6s 8d on two-thirds of last year’s income.”

When moving the second reading in the House, the Minister of Labour, Hon. S. G. Smith, said it bad been considered that women who were not competing with men in commerce and industry, and received only small incomes. such as interest from post office savings accounts and other similar sources, could not be touched, because it was almost impracticable to reach them all.