PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 108, 7 April 1932, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL

AMENDMENT MOVED BY LABOUR PARTY

The House of Representatives spent another day on the second reading of the Unemployment Amendment Bill, and the debate was still unfinished when the House rose last night. On behalf of the Labour Party, Mr P. Fraser moved as an amendment that the Bill be referred back to the Government with a recommendation that internal credit be raised for the purpose of a planned industrial development as an alternative to increasing the tax.

MEMBERS’ SPEECHES.

be raised for the purpose of a planned industrial development as an alternative to increasing the tax, which was inequitable in its incidence and likely to bring unnecessary hardship to thousands of citizens.

DEMAND FOR LAND

SETTLEMENT ADVOCATED.

WELLINGTON, April 6. The debate on the second reading of the Unemployment Amendment Bill was resumed by Mr H. G. Dickie, who referred to the land settlement aspect. He said he did not think mero development of blocks was satisfactory. Men should be enabled to settle themselves and their families on the land and make their homos there at the earliest possible moment. He believed thero was at present more real land hunger in New Zealand than at any other time during the past twenty years because it was realised that people holding allotments could at least provide food for themselves.

Mr J. Hargest urged tho Prime Minister to appeal to the country community now to donate a supply of produce, stock, etc., to be kept in store for the benefit of unfortunate citizens during the approaching winter, which he thought would be one of tho worst in the history of New Zealand. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr J. A. Nash, and the House rose at 11.30 p.m.

LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS.

■WELLINGTON, April 6,

Mr C. H. Chapman declared that the wage-reducing policy of the Government had increased unemployment. The number of men out of work would bo augmented as a result of bankruptcies of business people. Increased production would solve the problem. There was increased production to-day, but it had not been accompanied by a reduction of unemployment. Mr R. Semple said the policy being followed by the Government was one of destruction and not construction. The Prime Minister’s actions were being carried out at the dictation of overseas financial authorities. He asked how was it to bo possible for families to make a living on ten acres. The scheme was nebulous and one could not conceive that it would lead to any real alleviation of unemployment distress. MEASURE CRITICISED. Mr A. Stuart (Itangitikei) said there were many men with small capital who would bo willing to go on the land to-day if sections were offered by the Government at a reasonable price, yet it was proposed to place inexperienced and penniless men on rural allotments under the new unemployment scheme. If men with capital were given a chance of settling they would leave positions open for unemployed in the cities.

Mr W. E. Barnard said the Bill gave no evidence of a national outlook. The problem was being treated from a restricted viewpoint. He considered Mr Coates had too many portfolios and was unable to give enough time to dealing with unemployment.

Hon. A. D- McLeod complained that Labour speakers during the previous night had by insinuation and innuendo implied that tho land-owning class lacked sympathy for the unemployed. Ho declared this was a grave injustice.

Mr H. M. Campbell said he regarded Is in the £1 unemployment tax as too heavy an impost. He thought it should bo Cd, and that the remainder should be raised by means of an additional tax on amusements. He favoured putting seasonal workers on small areas of land where they could milk a few cows or grow fruit in the offseason. LEADER OF OPPOSITION. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) dealt at length with the displacement of workers from industry as a result of the introduction of machinery, and complained that the Bill made no attempt to cope with this aspect of the problem. Whatever problems confronted the country with regard to prices for primary produce, there was no shortage of food. Whatever difficulty the country knight encounter in repaying its debt obligations, there was no difficulty in regard to food supplies. Why, then, he asked, was it that so many people were homeless and in need of food? The Government was making a frank confession of its inability to meet the problem and was reducing the purchasing power of the people at a time when it was most necessary that the purchasing power should be maintained. Women in industries, .with the exception of domestic service, were to be called upon to pay a heavy wages tax, yet they were to receive none of the benefits under the Act —and these were small enough. The Government was proposing to place tradesmen on small areas of land, and farmers would be expected to make donations of cows, pigs, etc. He asked what guarantee of permanency of occupation would be afforded. It was proposed to place men on Crown lands. It must be admitted that fertiliser would be required to make these lands suitable for occupation, and he would like to know what was the estimated cost of such fertiliser and how it would be provided. After presenting a varied array of illustrations of the manner in which machinery had displaced workers in industry, Mr Holland said it was obvious that this was the main agency in creating unemployment. It was the Government’s duty to see that the benefit of inventions became the property of the community as a whole and not of individuals. There could ultimately bo no escape from the introduction of shorter hours, and he regretted that the Bill made no provision in this respect. It would be impossible for workers and working farmers to obtain benefits from the machinery used in their industries unless there was a planned system of production and distribution. It was largely a question of international agreement. So far as the working farmer was concerned, he was wholly dissatisfied with the provisions embodied in the Bill. There was not a shadow of hope of any remedial development, and it seemed to liim that the Government was bringing the country nearer and nearer to national bankruptcy and repudiation. , . . ~ Sir Apirana Ngata referred to the position of natives in relation to unemployment and tho expenditure that had been sanctioned by his department. He quoted figures to show that bush land had been cleared, fenced and sown at a total cost of LI Js an acre for labour. Could that be called extravagant? ho asked. Could pakehas do it for less? , ~ Mr \V. J. Poison: We couldn t do it for twice as much. T i_ Sir Apirana Ngata: And still Labour members accuso me of extravagance. Mr F. Langstone: It’s sweating. Sir Apirana Ngata: It is more like sweating than extravagance. Mr P Fraser moved that the Bill be referred’ back to tho Government with a recommendation that internal credit

Speaking in tho House of Representatives during the debate on the second reading of the Unemployment Amendment Bill, Hon. A. D. McLeod criticised the lack of constructive suggestions from the Labour benches. When the opportunity was given to Labour to carry into effect the promises it so loudly made to tho electors, it miserably failed. This had been illustrated in countries where Labour Governments had been returned to power. Referring to the Minister’s allotment scheme, Mr McLead said care would have to bo taken to see that it did not grow up into a small peasant system that would lean on the State, even after tli© return of normal or good times. He would have a great deal of hesitation in voting for a tax on women workers without further information. If women were to receive benefits from the funds to which they contributed, well and good, but until lie was satisfied they would receive those benefits he would hesitate in voting for that particular clause in tho Bill. SALE OF LIQUOR. ! DECISION OF MEMBERS. For Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 6. In the House of Representatives today the Speaker announced that, as a result of a poll taken of members of the General Assembly under the Legislature Act to determine whether liquor should bo sold within the precincts of Parliament Buildings for the remainder of the present Parliament, the voting had been as follows: Legislative Council. Ayes, 22; Noes, 9. House of Representatives—Ayes, 63; Noes, 12. Authority had therefore been given for the sale of liquor until the next Parliament had taken a poll on the subject. TRADE WITH ISLANDS. ITINERARY OF MAUI POMARE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 6. When the House of Representatives met at 2.30, Mr A. S. Richards asked whether, in view of the importance of fostering trade within and without New Zealand, the Government would take steps to include Auckland in the itinerary of the steamer Maui Pomare. Rt. Hon. G. W. Eorbes said that the decision to cut out both Auckland and Dunedin from tho itinerary had been made as the result of recommendations by the Parliamentary committee ot 1929 which had fully inquired into the service. It was considered that tho alteration was in the best interests or tho service. Trade with Samoa would still continue by tlio vessels which ran regularlv from Auckland and by the Maui Pomare from Wellington Trade with Niue would continue by the only sea connection with that island (namely, by the Maui Pomare) via Wellington and. through freights from Auckland Had been arranged. legislative council. ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 6. In tho Legislative Council Hus afternoon Hon. C. J. Carrington moved a motion urging tho Government to take steps to destroy ragwort in the North Auckland Peninsula, but after Sir James Parr had given an assurance that the Agricultural Department had tho matter in hand the motion was withdrawn. Resuming the debate on the second reading of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, Hon. G. J. Garland referred to the measure as tho most important they had had to consider for the last twenty years. An honest endeavour had been made by the Government to bring employer and employe© together in a spirit of goodwill. He denied that there had been industrial peace in New Zealand as a result of the Act. Hon D. Buddo said that in spite of the efforts of Parliament to provide better conditions for tlio working class, it had not been possible to prevent disputes, but Ire believed the Bill provided a way out -:f that difficulty. The strength of public opinion was sufficient safeguard against mjustices. Ho did not think tho Act would bo detrimental to the interests of tho workers. ~ , , . Hon. C. J. Carrington said that, although amendments to the Act were necessary, th<s present amendments were too drastic. The Council had a duty to perform not only to the workers, but to the people as a whole. He was prepared to admit that the majority of the employers were generous, but the trouble was that the ungenerous employer played tire tune and the others had to follow. He held that membership of unions should lie completely voluntary. Tho Bill should b© nmended in tho following directions: (1) Suspension of tho Industrial Conciliation and Amendment Act for 12 months or longer, if necessary; (2) provision for a minimum or basic wage; (3) enlargement of the scope of Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1913. to embrace all disputes that could not he settled by conferences between employers and employees. In committee he would move that the amendments' should become inoperative on March 31, 1933. The debate was adjourned and the Council rose at 4.45 p.m. until tomorrow.