MEN AND MACHINERY

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1930, Page 13

MEN AND MACHINERY

TRUTHLESS DISPLACEMENT” ' UNEMPLOYMENT BILL DEBATED. PLAN CRITICISED. ! By Tclecrnph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Continuing the debate on the second reading of the Unemployment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, Mr. C. Carr stressed the need for stimulating the manufacturing and sawmilling industries. He thought the proposals for vocational training were excellent, and hoped they would bo applied to railway workers who had been dismissed. He referred to the ruthless displacement of men by machinery, and he trusted that men out of work would be conshlerx as valuable to the State as the _ machines which had displaced them. Mr. J. T. Hogan said the stimulation given to immigration by past Governments, shipping companies and the High Commissioners had had a detrimental effect on employment. Immigrants had been misled by false promises, and altogether 225,000 people had been assisted - into New Zealand of a total population ■ of a million and a quarter. Mr. Hogan complimented the present Government on at least doing something to meet the unemployment problem. He criticised the system of subsidising to local bodies in the matter of relief works, and said it had simply added to the " local body indebtedness. He favoured a land development programme to absorb the unemployed'. Mr. Hogan advocated a £1 for £1 Government contribution to the fund raised by the unemployment ■levy. 1 , That would enable a large fund to be available to meet any future .serious position such as the present. . .' Mr. A. W. Hall said the fact that the Government had introduced an unemployment insurance scheme really amounted to • a confession that it was incapable to deal with the situation, while its proposal to set up a permanent board indicated that it considered the trouble-was. incurable. He did not .. .think this view could be justified in a young country like Now Zealand. He urged, that the main function" of the .Unemployment Board should he not to provide sustenance, but to find remedies for any economic difficulties arising. ; ACCEPTANCE OF PRINCIPLES. Mr. W. E. Parry said personally he accepted the principle of the Bill, but he was seriously opposed to the details, some of which he considered were humiliating to men out of work. He could not understand why women had been excluded from the scheme, because women were becoming- more and more established in industry; Surely, it would not be the duty of the board to find work for men, but to ignore the requirements and rights of women altogether. If the Bill were allowed to pass without some provision for the employment of women there would be a. vigorous protest from one end of the country to the other. <■

Mr. Parry took strong exception to the flat rate of 30s. for contributions to the unemployment fund. It could not be justified for one moment, he said. Taxation should be sought from people who possessed the ability to pay, and who would eventually receive the major share of the proceeds of the additional employment provided. Mr. R. W. Hawke said he felt the classification of men for relief works had been faulty in the past. He presumed the unemployment board would be reasonable for a sounder system of classification. The Bill was an honest attempt to grapple with a very serious matter. While it would not be agreed that it could meet every situation, it was undoubtedly the foundation of a scheme that could be amended and improved in the future as circumstances warranted.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong said it had to be admitted there might be some few individuals who would prefer to exist on the meagre sustenance allowance rather than work, but provision had to be made for thousands of others who genuinely wanted employment, and who could not get it. Mr. Armstrong urged the Government to fix contributions on the basis of one-third from the workers, one-third from the employers and onethird from the Government. He submitted it was a one-sided arrangement to ask the workers to contribute so much and to give them so little say in the administration of the fund. CAUSES OH UNEMPLOYMENT. Mr. A. Hamilton disagreed with the contention that immigration was responsible for unemployment. He considered it would be a benefit to the country to encourage a desirable type of immigrant. He expressed the opinion that some of the conditions and restrictions imposed by trade unionism might be blamed for the failure to provide work.- It would never be possible to persuade the people ■to go back to the land in any great numbers until the farmers’ standard of living had been raised. The man on the land had to compete in the open markets, and the present prices for his goods were such that his standard of living generally was the lowest in New Zealand.

Mr. W. E. Barnard said Mr. Hamilton apparently considered the Labour Party the principal cause of unemployment. He had apparently closed his eyes to the operations of the banking and other financial institutions, for instance. Mr. Barnard said he welcomed the Bill as an attempt to deal with unemployment in a systematic manner. The country had been a very long time in discovering the ineffectiveness of relief works. It had been shown that it cost £6 per week to employ a man on relief works, and in Britain the cost had been slightly higher. Still, this was too expensive. He submitted the Government had been too timid in framing the Bill. It did not embody the principle of calling on industry to bear the burden of its own depression. Mr. R. A. Wright contended the employers had introduced machinery in many instances because of labour troubles. They had merely sought relief from the circumstances in which strikes were frequent. He said he would oppose anything in the nature of a sustenance clause in the Bill, because it would destroy the spirit of independence In the working man. Ila could not agree that in a country such as New Zealand it would bo absolutely imposfor a man to get work.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan asked whether there was. anything .more likely to sap the independence of the worker than inability to get work. He had seen men

deteriorate under these conditions. Men who at the outset had revolted against g„ing to charitable aid boards for assistance had ultimately reached the state where they went regularly for help without hesitation.

Mr. W.-J. Polson expressed the opinion that the Bill embodied more satisfactory proposals than the report of the Unemployment Committee, because those who received the greatest benefit paid their fair share. It was easier to step forward than to step back, and it would be possible to amend the Bill later if it was found necessary to go as far as the Unemployment Committee’s report recommended. The success of the scheme would depend largely on the administration of the board. Mr. W. D. Stewart said it should be settled as a matter of Government policy whether the sustenance allowance was to be a matter of right, or whether it was to be subject to the discretion of the board. If the latter was the case it was little better than the present system of charitable aid. It appeared that if when the Bill was in committee it was not moulded to suit the wishes of the Labour Party the Government would have to say ,“Good-night, nurse.” It would have to meet the views of the Labour Party or of the Reform Party. :

Referring to the board, Mr. Stewart .said the Minister had stated it would be non-political. He suggested the Government might be hoping the board would revert to the policy of the Reform Party, and that it.would be a buffer between the Government and that policy. Referring to the flat rate of contributions, he said the members were considerably in the dark as to how this might be affected by the Budget. Unless the Budget contained something that would have the effect of distributing the burden on a more equitable basis there would be some justification for the Labour members’ objection. Replying to an interjection, Mr. Stewart said he had insufficient time to deal with the whole problem of the causes of unemployment, but he believed at the back of the .situation was the inability of the world’s gold supply to keep up with the production of wealth, thereby hindering exchange. Another difficulty was the tendency among nations to. create high tariff walls, thereby retarding distribution. Mr. W. L. Martin said he was disappointed with the Bill as a measure for the purpose of curing unemployment. He had been hoping something' would be produced in legislation to make the country take fresh courage and look forward to the dawn of a brighter day. The country was looking for a more determined effort to grapple with the problem. The proposal to place a poll tax on the male population to raise funds to aid unemployment was a most unscientific way of meeting the situation. No attempt had been madj to get down to the root causes. The responsibility was merely being shifted from one set of shoulders to another. The debate was adjourned.