UNEMPLOYMENT AS A PARTY CRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18687, 17 October 1922, Page 4

UNEMPLOYMENT AS A PARTY CRY.

Every Government would solve the unemployed problem if possible. Every Opposition makes tho problem the .basis of an attack on tho Government and in its bidding for political support promises a solution. The Parliament in Queensland lias recently been responsible for the passage, at the instance of the Labour Government, of an Unemployed Workers’ Act which has become popularly known as the “Loafers’ Paradise Act.” The Upper House has been abolished in Queensland, and by devious methods, including tho use of proxy voting (hitherto unknown in British constitutional history) and the frequent application of (he closure, the measure was “gagged” through the one Legislative Chamber. The Act will ho administered by an Unemployment Council, consisting of the Minister of Labour two Government officials (the Registrar of Friendly Societies and tho Director of Labour), and one representative each of the workers and employers. The unemployment fund will ho provided from contributions from tho Treasury and from employers and workers, the employers

deducting the contributions of the workers from their wages. In these respects the Act docs not materially differ from insurance systems which have proved to bo defective and mischievous. But the most dangerous and destructive principle in respect to industry is contained in a provision which gives the Governor-in-Council —in other words, the Government—power to order any employers to proceed with “works which “could reasonably he begun or proceeded with,” and also to order them to “do such things and take such moasures as will be effective for temporarily or permanently reducing or eliminating unemployment within the State or any part thereof.” If any employer should decide that ho cannot fulfil the injunction of the Unemployment Council he is liable to be penalised by a levy, and this, in addition to his ordinary contribution, shall be credited to the fund. This probably constitutes a record in coercive legislation of a character which must react on the industries of the country and consequently injure the workers. No employer could possibly succeed if he were, in times of financial difficulty, forced to undertake “works” which his business made impossible. Even local bodies would in these circumstances find the provisions of such an Act exceedingly embarrassing. If Mr Holland has his way, however, the dominion will, in duo tijne, have its own experience of difficulties of this kind. He stated in a policy speech at Wellington last week that the Labour Party’s scheme fer recognising the “right to work” provides that a worker, after seven days of unemployment, will receive (if single) £3 per week, and (if married) £4 per week and an additional 10s per week for each child under 16 years of age. The effects of “doles” have been entirely lost sight of in this proposal, and the source from which the money is to be obtained is apparently a matter for future consideration. In the meantime the general election is the inspiration for all such fantastic efforts, just as it is in Queensland, but past experience suggests that the electors in the dominion are .not likely to be partial to political proposals the adoption of which would produce mischievous and demoralising effects. It is easy to perceive that “unemployment” would 1 under conditions such as these become the permanent state of at Ifeast a number of the persons who benefited by the scheme. % 111 ■ —s