AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP IN DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19154, 21 August 1930, Page 11

AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP IN DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT.

Minister Takes Optimistic View When Presenting The Revised Bill To House. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, August 20. 44 'T'HE Unemployment Bill as now presented to the House A provides an opportunity for doing a very great deal, and with the assistance of members of Parliament, local bodies and others, I believe that next year Parliament will bo able to say it went a long way towards solving the unemployment problem in New Zealand,” said the Hon S. G. Smith, Minister of Labour, in the House to-night, when replying to the debate on the report of the Unemployment Committee. The committee had made minor alterations only to the measure, and members had expressed disappointment that the Bill had not undergone more radical amendment.

The Minister said it was proposed under the Bill to give opportunities to workers other than disabled soldiers to engage in some vocational" training, that would fit them for the battle of life. Included in New Zealand unemployed were a large number of men who for many years had occupied positions as clerks, but who to-day, through that avenue of employment having been closed, were compelled to undertake pick and shovel work. Under a properly controlled system it would be possible for that class of worker to receive such vocational training as would enable him to earn a livelihood other than by the use of pick and shovel, in which occupation at present he was not earning an average living wage. The Main Features. According to the Minister, the three main features of the Bill were the flat

Mr Wright: Make work for them. A Labour member: You did- not while you were in office. The Minister said he did not want to see the dole system permanently established in New Zealand; indeed, he hoped that, as a result of the operation of the Bill, the necessity for the payment of sustenance would in a few years disappear. Double Contributions. It had been contended, Mr Smith I continued, that the fiat tax of £1 10s 1 was inequitable, and that the man who received. £4 a week paid as much as the man whose weekly earnings were £lO. It was the intention of the Government definitely to earmark a portion of land and income tax revenue to pay State subsidy on expenditure out of the fund, and that would be done next year. Therefore the man who received £lO a week would, in addition to paying the £1 10s levy, assist through his income tax in payment of the Government subsidy, and thus contribute twice. The Government would at this stage be prepared to cept a graduated scale if one could be produced that was workable and under which the money could be properly collected. It was estimated that under the fiat tax proposed by the Bill £.500,000 would be produced and collected at a cost of £25,000, and that he considered to be a very reasonable outlay. Sound Foundation. The Bill, stated the Prime Ministei, the Hon G. W. Forbes, was founded on the thorough investigation ui the problem by a representative committee. He had heard that night a good deal of criticism of subsistence allowances, but there was no shutting one s eyes to the fact that when the community could not find work for a man it could i not. let him starve. There could be no

tax, the personnel of the Unemployment Board, and the payment of sustenance. The provision for sustenance had been bitterly criticised by Mr Wright (Wellington Suburbs', but that member had not offered any alternative. The object of the Bill was to co-ordinate Government Depart-

ments with the assistance of local bodies to find employment. and sustenance would l>e paid only as a last resort, when it was found that every means of providing work had been exhausted. It would be held that neither a man nor his wife and children should

difference of opinion anywhere in the House on that point. Jn setting: up the Unemployment Board, it would be with the intention that the board would provide work for men able to do it. The very reason for bringing the Bill before Parliament was for the purpose of seeing whether improvements could be effected, and it would be a reflection on Parliament if this could not be done. He was satisfied That in committee improvements would be made, though it was impossible to provide against every contingency. MINOR CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT BILL. COMMITTEE PRESENTS ITS REPORT TO HOUSE. (Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON, August 20. “Minor amendments” was the description of the changes made in the Unemployment Bill by the Select Committee set up to take evidence on this important measure. Its chairman. Mr G. C. Munns (Roskill) presented the report to the House to-night, and briefly detailed the changes. It was found when the amended Bill became available, that although the committee had taken a great deal of evidence, it had not interfered with any of the policy proposals. Its alterations were limited to three. Clause 10 of the original Bill had provided for a fine of £IOO for failure to register. The committee altered this to “ not exceeding,” and it made a similar change in regard to the £2O penalty for minor breaches of the Act. Clause 1-1 empowers the appointment of associate members of the Employment Board, where it is desirable to secure the services of persons possessed of expert knowledge or special qualifications of advantage to the board. It was decided by. the committee to delete the provision which gave these co-opted individuals full standing as board members during their association. No other change has been made. The Bill still provides for a flat rate levy of 30s on all male workers. It does not include females, and no change has been made in the scale of sustenance allowances previously proposed. CHRISTCHURCH MEMBERS’ COMMENT. (Special to the “Star.") WELLINGTON, August 20. Answering the criticism of Mr Poison, member for Stratford, that much of the failure to absorb } r oung people

Arbitration Court awards, Mr Sullivan (Avon) declared that there were awards which employers were not car rying out in respect of their obligations to provide work for boys. The reason why so many boys were unemployed was the refusal of farmers adequately to support secondary industries, which could give them openings. He wished to protest against Reform members’ efforts to put the brand of charity on the recipients of subsistence allowance. Mr Coates: That’s unfair. Mr Sullivan retorted that this was the only deduction he could make from three Reform speeches. The Labour Party preferred to see idle men given work, but if work could not be found they should not be forced to charitable aid boards for charity. That was the only alternative to the sustenance allowance. lie and his colleagues were; just as keen as was the Minister of ! Labour to make the scheme a success However, it must not be based on in justice, and there would certainly be a feeling of resentment among the lowest paid workers that they were forced to pay the same as high salaried workers. He commended the Victorian scale of contributions to the Minister’s attention. Mr Howard (Christchurch South) said that he would have preferred to discuss the Bill clause by clause, but this occasion had not yet arrived. When the select committee was deliberating on the Unemployment Bill it was generally a case of the Labour members against the rest. The committee was simply following up the work of the larger body which had so fully invest! gated the unemployment problem in the recess and reported very clearly on it. The Minister was to be congratulated on having for once his Reform enemies with him. Mr Dickie: Are you in favour of the Bill? Mr Howard: Decidedly Labour is not- satisfied with this Bill. The member for Christchurch South said he was delighted with the revolutionary proposals of the Farmers’ Union that the cost of the scheme should come. from the Consolidated Fund. Therein they differed from their president, the member for Stratford who, as the Farmers’ Union president, ought to have a serious talk with himself. (Laughter.)