PROMOTING WORK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22405, 29 April 1936, Page 15

PROMOTING WORK

LABOUR'S SCHEMES DOUBTS OF SUCCESS SPEECH BY MR. FORBES HOUSE PASSES BILL [BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday After a fairly protracted discussion in committee the third reading debate on the Employment Promotion Bill passed* off in the House of Representatives to-night without any new facts of importance being revealed. The main features were the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, and the reply to the debate by the Minister of Employment, Hon. H. T. Armstrong.

Mr. Forbes took to task critics of the last Government who were always claiming that on his return from the Imperial Conference a deflationary programme was followed, which had the effect of increasing the numbers of unemployed. It was true that because of the large decrease in national income and the returns from industry overhead costs had had to be reduced, but those critics, Mr. Forbes claimed, always omitted to mention at the same time that while purchasing power might have been reduced there was a reduction in the cost of living. Government's Good Fortune For instance the former Government had reduced rents to reduce living costs when wages were reduced. Mr. Forbes contended the cost of living had fallen commeusurately. " There is one thing in which the present Government ia fortunate," Mr. Forbes said. "In handling this unemployment situation it will not have what the last Government had to contend with. It will not have members of the Opposition trying to stir up strife. There will not be weekly speeches to tell the unemployed that the Government is treating them unfairly." Mr. Forbes said he could not have the same hope and faith that the Government had in the success of its schemes, that everything would sail along so smoothly and that the country would get tjhe benefits which had been promised. So far the Government, busy with legislation which was to provide the machinery for its plans, had not been able to do much, but he doubted whether ultimately the expenditure of money could be kept up. The time would come when the Government would be spending more than its income, added Mr. Forbes. There had been so much liberality and generosity that it would be impossible for any Minister of Finance to balance his Budget. Reply by Minister Opposition criticism of the provisions in the bill was answered by Mr. Armstrong when winding up the debated The Government, he said, was simply asking for authority to give more liberal treatment to the unemployed. It was the first duty of a Government to provide for the needs of those people. Even if the unemployed were given an extra £1,000,000, the money was still in the country and circulated to the benefit of the country as a whole. Referring to the abolition of the Unemployment Board, the Minister said that every member of that board agreed that the whole thing was an absurdity, and that the board was only used as a smokescreen so that other people could take the responsibility for the last Government's mismanagement. If there was any mismanagement in the handling of unemployment funds, the present Government was not going to hide behind a board, but take the responsibility itself.

If members had been able to accompany him on his recent northern tour they would have seen something of maladministration of the past Government, continued the Minister. At Hobsonville he had seen men wheeling wheelbarrows in relays. By the adoption of efficient methods the job could have been dfflie for one shilling a yard, but under the methods approved by the last Government and the Unemployment Board it was costing 8s 2d a yard. The bill was read a third time and passed. BROADCASTING SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE POSTS QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Tuesday Particulars of certain arrangements made by the Broadcasting Board were sought by Mr. C. L. Carr (Government —Timaru) in questions in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. Carr gave notice to ask the Postmaster-General, the Hon. F. Jones, whether the board had advertised for a general manager when it took oyer the service; on whose recommendation the general manager had been appointed; and what business ability, musical or other cultural attainments the general manager had possessed to warrant his appointment to direct public entertainment to the extent demanded by a national service. Mr. Carr also asked what post the general manager had occupied in the Post and Telegraph Department when appointed to the new position, and he asked for details of the ordinary avocations and any special qualifications of the members of the board appointed by tlie previous Government. Was the Government in favour, Mr. Carr asked in conclusion, of superannuated State employees being employed in the broadcasting service?