UNEMPLOYMENT FUND

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21807, 23 May 1934, Page 10

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND

The statement of the financial position of the Unemployment Fund that has been made by the Hon. A. Hamilton shows that income is growing. Through the rise in wool, the stimulation to trade by the building subsidy .and through the increase in employment that recent reports have recorded, it is likely to continue to do so provided the tax remains at the present figure. Under the circumstances, the time has come for a much more comprehensive review of the whole situation. Only in its annual reports to Parliament has the board given the adequate survey which is due to the taxpayers, who as a body have shouldered an immense burden without complaint. The absence of complaint apparently has brought its penalties in a far too great reticence by the board as to the financial details of its administration. What, for instance, is the exact result of the new building subsidy scheme not only in relieving unemployment, but also in creating indirect activity in trade and industry 1 There ought to be closer contact between the board and the public who supply its funds. Mr. Hamilton has referred to the charge that the board was building up an excessive surplus. The figures for the last three years, as published in the board's last report, were.—

Income Credit balance 1931 .. £388.250- £(59,115 1932 .. JC2.439.199 £181,907 1933 . . £4,212,906 £424,420 To understand the variation in the income figures it is necessary to know that the year 1931 embraced only six months, and that the wages tax of threepence in the pound was not altered to one shilling until May, 1932. In his statement to Parliament in October last, Mr. Hamilton gave the surplus at the beginning of the present financial year as £334,000, not £424,426, as stated in the report. In view of the complexities of the system it can be well understood that to arrive at a precise balance at a given date is hardly possible. Although the year started with less than the estimated balance, however, it produced the revenue total of £4,745,000, and the surplus at March 31 is set down at £444,000. Although commitments at that date exceed that amount by £183,000, the taxpayer may reasonably ask why those commitments should not be made a charge upon new revenue, particularly when the prospect is for a better return 1 It is just as bad to err on the side of caution as on that of over-spending. The board is facing winter and taxpayers will riot expect it to be niggardly in its outlays, but they do expect to be given all the available information on the conditions and prospects of unemployment.