UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18075, 19 July 1930, Page 7

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE. SECOND READING DEBATE. SUSTENANCE PRINCIPLE QUERIED (By Tel.—Special to Times). WELLINGTON, Saturday. The Unemployment Bill, which aims to give effect to the Government’s plans for dealing with the unemployment problem in New Zealand, came before the House of Representatives yesterday for its second reading. In moving the second reading, the Minister of Labour (the Hon'. S. G. Smith) asked for the assistance and cooperation of the other parties in placing the Bill on the Statute Book. The main point of objection to the measure raised by the Leader of the Opposition was that the principle of sustenance was wrong. He also expressed uneasiness concerning the cost of administration of the scheme. The Labour Party objects to the unemployment levy falling on the bulk of the workers, and advocates an increase in the amount of sustenance provided for in the Bill. Mr Smith said the Bill would be thoroughly investigated by a special committee. The Bill was the result of the Government’s investigations oC the Unemployment Committee’s report. There would be no delay in setting up the Unemployment Board, and the public would be called upon ,to make its contributoin on December 1. Referring to the levy, he said that the Budget would disclose the Government’s intentions in regard to the raising of its share of the fund. Levy of £600,000. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland): “How much will the flat tax produce?” The Minister: “Approximately £500,00.0 The levy would be pay-’*' able ' tj„ §.* the Post Office, and officers I ', |;-P. and T. Department had d4' §1 very simple method. .Each cf ... c-or would be issued with a little’'l)o?f>et, in which receipts for the payment of levies would be pasted. Contributors could either pay the year’s levy in one sum or in quarterly payments. A high penalty had been fixed for non-registration. The Minister, explaining the presence on the board of a representative of the Returned Soldiers’ Association, said the Government could not see its way clear at present to set up a separate organisation to deal with the rehabilitation of returned soldiers, and .it was felt that the Unemployment Board , could do all that was necessary. Vocational Training. Mr Smith said he did not think it would be an insuperable difficulty for the Board to arrange with technical schools throughout the country to hold vocational w r ork in connection r with adult pupils who had been disabled in various ways. This vocational training would enable the men, returned soldiers and civilians, to undertake suitable employment, and thus work out their own destiny. Such a scheme would be of great service to ' a great many people who were at present prevented from following, their ordinary occupation. The Minister said power wks given to the board to make loans, either with or without interest, to farmers in order • to permit of their employing more men, and thus bringing their farms up to the highest possible point of production. The Minister of Lands had almost finalised a scheme for. the absorption of a large number of unemployed.

Dole System Wrong. The Leader of the Opposition (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates) said it was quite possible that the Bill as amendded by the committee would be a very different one when it again appeared before the House. The Minister had not given any information as to how the Bill was likely to work out in the matter of sustenance. They should introduce nothing that could be interpreted as being in the nature' of a dole. The principle of the dole was entirely wrbng, and it should not be enunciated in this country. Experience of the dole in other countries showed that the charge on the community was much more than was at first anticipated. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland): “Would 4 ’ you call the British system .a .dole?” . Mr Coates: “It has created its own problems. I say we should not follow a system that has brought such results.” He said he took it that every man who was out of work wanted to find work, and if work could be found to suit their qualifications those men should be prepared to, accept relief money from an unemployment fund for the work they did, rather than receive something for nothing. Sustenance, although it might be only for thirteen weeks, the maximum period provided for in the Bill, meant something for nothing. The House would be wise to avoid anything of the kind. ' Economists differed, he continued but they were more or less agreed that unemployment relief works should not be made attractive. Continuing, Mr Coates . said it appeared as though the Minister of Labour had included in the Bill several of the recommendations of the ex soldiers’ rehabilitation committee He did not think the returned soldiers would appreciate that what the Bill contained was the- best that could be done for them. ~ In conclusion, the Leader of Opposition said they had been no idea of the cost of administering the proposals in the Bill. _ The Hon. S. G. Smith. J-ne e nenses of the Unemployment Board, plus small cost of making the le ' y ' Labour Opposition. The Leader of the Labour Party r\Tr H E Holland) said legislation such as that which they had before them was only a palliative and not a solution of the problem. Nothing was to be done to assist those men and women capable and willing to work, to find employment. He felt that the unemployment problem would still be withthem after the Bill had been passed. When private employment broke down —as it had clone in every country under .the sun then the workless had the right to maintenance for their wives and children. Theie was no more dangerous theory than that which denied the right of sustenance to the man who could not find employrkcnt. This Bill did not satisfy him, and it did not satisfy ho members of the Labour Party. It did not make any provision for the creating oi work ik protested against the proposal' that the Government should pay onlv a 50 per cent, subsidy on the •V amount expended, and thought that - th e amount should he at least pound

(Continued in next column.)

for pound. The Labour Party, did not agree with the flat rate of taxation, because it meant that the workers would be providing the bulk of the fund. They were in favour of a graduated system of taxation, so that those who reaped the greatest benefits' from the labours of the workers should be made to pay. It was a mistake to exclude women from the benefits 'of unemployment insurance. Women out of work suffered greater privation than men. The Unemployment Commission had laid it down definitely that the problem was a national one, and that the only solution was the finding of profitable work for those unemployed. If the unemployed were placed on profitable work, they thus had the right to standard rates of pay. Entitled to Greater Representation. Women out of work often had obligations to relatives. and they had the same right as the men to the advantages of the Bill. That had been recognised in other countries. The workers were to make the greatest contribution to the fund, and they were entitled to greater representation on the board. In his opinion they should be given four representatives as against two as proposed. He did not object to the returned soldiers being represented, as it was well known that the further they got away from the war the- worse was the treatment to the soldiers. The Bill proposed that facilities be provided for vocational training, but maintained that the money for this purpose should be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. It was considered by the Labour Party that the period which a. man had to be out of -work before he received the benefits of sustenance should be reduced from fourteen days to seven. It was essential that the women and children should not suffer while the breadwinner had been denied the right to work. Workers should not be refused sustenance because of an industrial dispute, for in many cases (and he instanced the example of illegal lockouts) the worker was in no way to blame. The Labour Party favoured the raising of the allowance to men to 25s per week, that to wives to £1 per week, and that to children to ss. Even this would mean only £2 15s for a man, wife, and two children. He was not in favour of a limit of 13 weeks being placed on workers, and hoped that seamen would not be penalised because of their enforced absence from the country. Definite Responsibilities.

Mr M. .1. Savage (Labour—Auckland West) said the Public Works and other departments had certain definite responsibilities in regard to unemployment and it looked as though the new tribunal that was to be set up was to be saddled with those responsibilities. It would seem that instead of relieving workers, the bill was designed to relieve Ministers. He could not see that it was reasonable to impose the same levy on all people, irrespective of income. ' Mr W. Nash (Labour —Hutt) urged the Government to make available to women whatever benefits there were to be derived from an unemployment insurance scheme. lie advocated a graduated scale of contributions. Mr C. L. Carr (Labour —Timaru) Supported the plea for graduated contributions on the basis of ability to pay. The debate was then adjourned.