UNEMPLOYMENT FUND

Northern Advocate, 7 November 1932, Page 6

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND

ADMINISTRATION CHARGES CRITICISED BY LABOURITES. DISCONT!NUANCE URGED. (From Our Parliamentary Special.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Severe criticism of Hie administration of the Unemployment Fund was made by Opposition members in the House during the debate on the Estimates. The suggestion tvas made that the board should be abolished. Mr E. .1. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South), said the vote under the Estimates for administration was £65,000, including £IOOO for Labour Department officers travelling on Unemployment Board business. It seemed to him to be more like a picnic fund. Mr D. McDougall (Go\'ornment, Mata lira): “It is not an unemployment fund at all!”

“I am opposed to voting one farthing for the expenditure of the unemployment board,” declared Mr P. Eraser (Labour, Wellington Central). “I think the time has arrived for the Government to consider the cutting out of unnecessary expense, and to allow Ministers to deal direct Avith the problem. (Hear, hear). When the board’s vote is reached, there must be a searching analysis of the amount expended and into the question Avhother the board should be abolished.”

Tho opinion Avas expressed hy Mr J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) that, according to recently published figures, the number of unemployed in Now Zealand must have iioav reached the total of 103,060. The problem had assumed such proportions that it might with advantage bo referred to a select committee of the House.

The Minister, in a brief reply, which did not cover the questions raised, indicated that the sum of £50,000 shown in the Estimates as the cost of services performed by other departments was allocated as follows:—Public Works, £5000; Labour Department, £20,000; Post and Telegraph, £22,250; and Land and Income Tax, £750. The Minister said it was not fair that other departments .should suffer at the expense of the Unemployment Pund.