THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1930. UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20649, 22 August 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1930. UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

The Unemployment Bill' has come back from the select committee which has been considering it with such insignificant amendments that it may be considered, for all practical purposes, unaltered. Its ambiguities of phrasing, the extraordinary language—judged by the usual standards of law drafting — used in some passages, its exceedingly vague definitions of many important powers to be conferred on the Unemployment Board, stand as they were when the bill was first introduced. Even if the select committee had not felt disposed to recommend changes in the principles or policy embodied in the measure, it might have attempted a little badly-needed redrafting. It has not even done this. Some suggestion has been made that the Committeo of the House may make desirable changes. If the bill could not have its crudities removed by a select committee which lias been considering it for some time, which has had the advantage of privacy and reasonably informal discussion, what chance is there of good being done in the much less judicial atmosphere of open committee 1 In the ordinary way the Government would only need to say it could not accept an amendment, that if it were pressed the fate of the bill would be involved, and that amendment would instantly fail. At the present moment there is the added plea of urgency for all contentious questions. It is perfectly certain that unless the Government has amendments of its own to make, or is prepared to adopt any from tho other side, the bill will go through in its present shape. All who have any doubts about its value as an instrument to effect the desired purpose must accept that prospect without any doubts. The Unemployment Bill, then, can be expected to become part of the law of the land very soon. It will contain some clauses for which no parallel, probably, can be found anywhere. This is an example, taken from what are described as the "main functions" of the Unemployment Board: —"To take such steps as, in accordance with this Act, it considers necessary to promote the growth of primary and secondary industries in New Zealand, so that an increasing number of workers will be required for the efficient carryingon of such industries." It will be a wise board that knows what this directs it to do ; the result will be easy to foresee. That particular clause will be ignored, as a good deal else the bill contains must be, since it is incapable of practical application. The reason such things have escaped any attention from the select committee, and will pass without challenge by the House, is really quite obvious. Any criticism, whether justifiable or not, of proposals to deal with unemployment is liable to be labelled immediately as lack of sympathy for the unemployed. By such procedure an unhealthy atmosphere has been created. It is not possible to gain an impartial hearing for the suggestion that if the wrong thing be done the last state of the unemployed may be worse than the first. Even to this.the retort of.callousness is made. Consequently politicians, even sitting on a select committee, become dubious about doing their plain duty by trying to reshape a crude, ill-con-structed and ill-balanced piece of projected legislation. It is little use now wasting regrets about what has been done, or what might have been. The country must simply accept what Parliament is about to give it. If by the time next session begins the cost of unemployment relief has reached the mark indicated by the present scheme, and the unemployment situation has not been eased—a very probable contingency —another and better designed attempt may be made to grapple with the problem. Since little else can be done, it may be as well to deal with some misconceptions which have been industriously supported since this scheme first appeared. It is not unemployment insurance, nor anything resembling it. The Unemployment Committee said an insurance scheme would not be practicable in this country, and on all the evidence it was quite right. If, therefore, for tho sake of accuracy, the pretence that it does deserve the name is dropped, there need be no further labouring of the point. There is no suggestion that the levying of funds is on a scientific basis. The committee made none. It advocated universal contribution on the principle that unemployment was a social, not purely an industrial, problem. The use of the word "dole" has been deprecated, but whether it be used or not, there is no escaping the fact that the proposed sustenance payments are much more akin to a dole than the benefits piiid under the British scheme, at least in its original form. There, benefits boro a direct relation to contributions. Here they will have none. Since thousands will contribute directly without any prospect of drawing anything from the fund, that feature cannot be denied. However, it may not last long even in this form. The country can expect a drive, before the scheme has been long in operation, to have the benefits increased and the burden of contributing transferred more and more from those who will receive, and placed on those who will never obtain anything either from the activities of the board or tho sustenance payments. This will affect not only the wealthy, but the industrious and thrifty of moderate means. If tho community has no objection, there is nothing more to bo said; but the prospect should be realised. As it stands at present, tho bill

promises to replace a very costly and uneconomic system of relief financed hitherto almost entirely by loan money by another, promising to be no better, based wholly on taxation. Any suggestion that the basic causes of unemployment will be attacked carries no conviction whatever. These arc the main features of the scheme that in a hasty and undigested form is about to be adopted by Parliament.