Little Progress Made

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIV, Issue 100, 27 August 1930, Page 3

Little Progress Made

WITH UNEMPLOYMENT BILL. ■ DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE. ! By Telegraph—Abridged —Press Assn. WELLINGTON, Last Night. The House of Representatives went into committee this afternoon to deal with the Unemployment Bill. The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr H. E. Holland, expressed the opinion that very few workers would be likely to raise any objection to the payment of contributions towards an unemployment fund. He was satis'fied no man if he had had the experience of cases that daily came before members of Parliament ’ would object to paying even £5 levy. Every member of Parliament had had his attention drawn to cases that were worse than heartbreaking, yet he was unable to give assistance. Referring to the bill, Mr Holland said there were a good many features which fell far short of what the Labour Party stood for. Still, it would make some provision for people in dire distress. The only alternative to sustenance in many cases was starvation. When a worker paid 30s or £l, or whatever scale of contribution was eventually decided upon, he would be contributing it as an insurance for himself. The general effect of providing work would be a contribution towards the economic stability or New Zealand. It particularly desired a graduated scale of contributions and that women should be included in the scheme.

Penny in the Pound. The Minister of Labour said there had been a suggestion from an organised labour conference that the levy should be on the basis of penny in the pound of all income. The advice of experts, however, indicated that the cost of collecting such a levy would make it practically unworkable. It would be necessary to ascertain the income of every man over twenty years of age, and to do that it would be necessary that every man should make out a return. It was pointed out that if a penny in the pound were collected from every income over £3OO that at present did not pay tax because of certain exemptions the number of taxpayers would be increased by fifty per cent. There would be £7500 to collect and the cost of collecting it would be £7OOO. The cost of collecting a similar levy on incomes below £3OO would be prohibitive.

Work in Return for Sustenance. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said he was in favour of the retention of the sustenance clause in the bill so long as it was provided that a man should go to a local body and be given some, work to do in return for the sustenance received. He pointed out that some local bodies would be able to employ a large number of men if they had the money to pay them. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) took exception to the advice of the experts on the subject of graduated contributions. He suggested that the Minister should again refer the matter to the officials and ask them to make some feasible proposal that would be capable of being put into operation. Continuing this evening, an amendment moved by Mr Fletcher to amend the short title to “Employment Bill’’ was defeated on the voices. Mr C. E. Macmillan (Tauranga) said he favoured the addition of a hardship clause to meet the position of those to whom the payment of the 30s levy was unduly difficult. -Proposed Amendments The Hon. S. G. Smith announced that he had a number of amendments which he proposed to insert in the bill with the permission of the House. In addition to an amendment giving authority for the transfer of £lOO,OOO from the Consolidated Fund to the Unemployment Fund to meet immediate requirements, it was proposed to alter the clause granting exemptions from the levy so that all pensioners, instead of old age pensioners as previously, should be exempted. He would ask that the clause providing for a flat rate of contributions to the Unemployment Fund should be held over in the meantime. In view of the objections that had been raised it was only right that Cabinet should have an opportunity to reconsider the position and to see whether a scheme could be devised under which a graduated scale would be workable and would bring in the money required ahd at the same time Imposing the minimum hardship. Referring to a proposal to include on the board a representative

of returned soldiers, Mr Smith said there had been complaints that this would not by any means fulfil the recommendations of the Rehabilitation Commission. He pointed out that it would require more money than there was available to fulfil the commission’s recommendations at once, and z he hoped the House would accept the proposal embodied in the bill as a means of doing something this year to improve the position of disabled ex-service men. Replying to a request that women should be included in the scheme, Mr Smith said there were 286,000 women in New Zealand who were either retired or pensioners or engaged in domestic duties. It would be unfair to ask all these women to contribute to the levy for the sake of a few hundred women workers. If the contributions were confined to women workers there would be complaints that large numbers of girls leaving school would never be able to benefit under the scheme, because it was possible they never had employment. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Leader of the Opposition, said it would be a mistake to postpone consideration of the clause relating to the unemployment levy, which he believed, was the backbone of the bill. Mr H. E. Holland declared that the Minister would be unwise not to take full time to consider the suggested alteration in the basis of contributions. When the clause was reached it was decided, on the suggestion of Mr Coates, to report progress and ask for leave to sit again.