UNEMPLOYMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19862, 27 July 1934, Page 4

UNEMPLOYMENT

PRIVATE MEMBER’S BILL LONG DEBATE IN THE HOUSE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, July 26. The debate on Mr D. G. Sullivan’s motion for leave to introduce the Unemployment Amendment Bill was continued in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) spoke of the differentiation between city and country relief workers and said the Government was taking - advantage of the position. It had a policy for the city where the men had an opportunity to organise and secure the ear of those in authority, and another policy for the backblocks, where no other assistance was available. The Rev. Clyde Carr (Lab., Timaru) said that the Government would not accept the responsibility for raising money in any other way than by loan or taxation. The Labour Party said that was all rubbish. If the Unemployment Board capitalised its fund there would be more than sufficient to do all that Mr Sullivan sought to do. If the Government was not prepared to raise an internal loan what about taxation? He knew some classes were heavily taxed, but there were many people who would rather be taxed a little more than see the cases of hardship which were existing. Mr Forbes: They can give voluntarily. Mr Carr: Yes they can, but when it is left to people to give voluntarily it is found that certain people who really could not afford it gave till it hurt, while others who could afford it gave nothing. The poor always gave most. People who could afford it should be made to pay. Mr Carr criticised the number 10 building scheme which subsidised wealthy companys to instal American labour saving schemes. He asked the Government why New Zealand could not have unemployment insurance as they had it at Home. The present Government was the mos extravagant the Dominion ever had. Goods were produced to be consumed, and people should not have to go hungry in the midst of plenty. Landowner Defended. Mr A. Stuart (C., Rangitikei) said he thought that the chain system adopted by the freezing works was all right. It was introduced through the action of the workers themselves. No suggestion had been made to remedy the position. The only thing wanted was more pay and that meant more taxation. Reference had been made to landowners who it was stated, had had a subsidy from the Unemployment Board. Mr Semple had mentioned the names of Messrs Riddiford, Cameron and T. A. Duncan. Mr Stuart said that he knew nothing about Messrs Riddiford and Cameron, but he did know the facts about Mr Duncan, who had never employed one unemployed man on his own property. There was a property of 9000 acres into which Mr Duncan had financed a man, but when times became bad the man had to get out. Mr Duncan felt that he had an obligation to the mortgagee and took it over. The Unemployment

Board was making an appeal to try to get unemployed men into useful work, and Mr Duncan employed 110 men cutting scrub, planting sandgrass, draining etc. A Labour member: He got a subsidy then? Mr Stuart: Of course he got a subsidy, but not a 50 per cent subsidy. Mr Duncan had to bear overhead charges, buy fencing, grass seed and other things. The land was still in the man’s name and if things turned out all right it would still belong to him. Mr Stuart said he thought that the Standing Orders of the House should not permit a member to make remarks about anyone who had not an opportunity to defend himself. Mr E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South) criticised the sustenance allowance. He said the country could not keep a man in gaol, or in the army or navy for 3/- a day, yet that was all that the Bill was asking. If the present policy was pursued he could see nothing ahead but permanent unemployment. Children Said to be Suffering. Mr A. S. Richards said that New Zealand was rapidly developing a C 3 nation. Children were growing up suffering from preventible diseases because of ill-nourishment. If things were allowed to go on ultimately an Oliver Cromwell would rise up. Recently he was in the Hawke’s Bay district and learned of wealthy landowners who were employing Indian workers at 10/- a week and receiving a subsidy. Some of them came within the circle that received the benefit of the increased exchange rate. He said that incomes above £3OOO or £4OOO should be taxed to extinction during the present depression rather than allow little children to suffer. There was no country in the world better able to have a high standard of living than New Zealand. If war broke out New Zealand could find money for destructive purposes and was, therefore, under a moral obligation to find money for constructive purposes. Mr E. T. Tirikatene (Ind., Southern Maori) said that the difference in relief allocations between natives and pakehas was most conspicuous. The matter called for close investigation. He quoted cases in support of his statement. He submitted that the Maori was entitled to a fair deal. Mr P. C. Webb (Lab., Buller) agreed that the Maori should not receive less than the pakeha. If any discrimination was made, the Maori should receive the advantage. The Government should change the whole unemployment policy and insist that every person employed should be paid at standard rates of pay for the class of work performed. The Government should take a leaf out of the book of every government in Australia regarding relief work. Administration Costs. Mr F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) said that the Government should dictate a policy to the Unemployment Board which seemed to have been set up to act as a buffer. He said that although the cost of administration ’might be small on a percentage basis it cost £95,000 in 1933 and £112,000 in 1934. That was not the whole cost as it did not include unemployed men who were working in employment offices at relief rates. He thought that not enough attention had been paid to the opinion of the family doctor when the question arose whether a man was fit or not to go to camp, and said that physically unfit men were being sent into camps in Central Otago when an exceptionally hard winter was being experienced! He urged that a tax should be placed on absentees who derived income from investments in New Zealand. A boy under 20 did not have to pay 1/- in the £ on income, but a girl under 20 did.

Mr A. J. Stallworthy (C., Eden) said that the Unemployment Board’s expenditure had departed too far from the control of the House, which should have absolute control of the fund. He was satisfied that there was plenty of useful work available for all the unemployed throughout the Dominion. Work needed to ber done and they had the men to do it. He thought that if the Government co-operated with local authorities the problem could be ended within a year. Plea for Country Residents. Mr Connolly (Ind. C., Mid-Canter-bury) advocated better treatment for unemployed men and women in the country. He thought that country people had taken things too easily. Mr W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) said it was not enough to say that the Government was giving sustenance to the unemployed. The question was whether people were able to live on the amount and, based on the Family Allowances Act, the rate of sustenance was most inadequate. Mr D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborne) said that the unemployed in the country were infinitely worse off than in the city. Country people had been too law abiding.