TO-DAY'S DISCUSSION

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 34, 10 February 1933, Page 9

TO-DAY'S DISCUSSION

AMENDMENT RULED OUT

The proposal in the ;Bill to guarantee out of the Unemployment Fund the rent payable during the first four years of any lease granted under the Bill was opposed by .the Labour Party in the, House to-day. >'- ! Mr. D. G.. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) moved an, amendment that the liability should be placed on the public accounts instead of the Unemployment Fund. Mr. E. A. Wright (Government, Wellington Suburbs) said that the Unemployment Fund, was quite insufficient to stand any additional' strain. If money were taken, from the. fund, the Minister would- have to reduce the amounts paid to the relief workers. The Minister of-Finance (the Eight Hon. J. G. Coates) said that the whole cost of the Bcheme would not fall on the Unemployment Fund. It was stated that the Government should borrow money for ; land settlement, but that was impossible. However, it might suit the occupier or mortgagee of a piece of land which was not being fully worked to have the area subdivided. That would enable: men to be settled oifsmall areas. The value of the land would; be determined at 5 per cent, of the'unimproved value and 2* per cent, of tho improved value, ana a. rent^woula be fixed on this basis. ' The relief wage or sustenance allowance .which would ordinarily be paid the- settler would be paid in the form of rent. In this way they would bo able to carry out a, policy of closer settlement which was not possible at the present time. The capital cost of s«ttlemcnt such as the erection of a house and fencing would not be a charge on the Unemployment Fund. Already they had persuaded the State lending departments to agree to subdivisions of mortgages, and offers of land were coming in in anticipation of the passage of the Bill. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Independent, Eden) said that there was an uneasiness about the likelihood of. the unemployment funds being depleted for purposes other than relief, which was widely needed in the cities. SCOPE OF BILL. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) said that the Bill did not apply to the unemployed only, but to "approved persons." They had the statement of the Minister that the measure would not necessarily be applied to the unemployed, but to persons who might become unemployed. This gave the Minister and the Department wide scope. He did not want to prevent anyone from getting on to the land, but he was concerned about the extent to which unemployment funds might be used for settling people who were not registered unemployed. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Government, Wanganui) said he had a fear that a large proportion of the money would be diverted from unemployed men who could not take advantage of the scheme to the scheme itself. The allocations to the cities should be strengthened rather than decreased.

. Mr. Coates said he appreciated the point which had been raised, but the" Government desired to absorb the unemployed in industry—in this caso the primary industry. 'It was very difficult to carry out any development scheme- without money, and the propo* sals under the Bill* were the only way out. He did not think-'the amounfc-to

be paid would bo any 'moie than 25s per week and would average less than that. It was proposed to tiae the framework of the Bill to settle "men with, say, £500 of capital, but these men would not receive sustenance. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) said | the Bill would not meet the problem, and would settle only 100 or 200 men. ' OUT OF ORDER. The Chairman of Committees (Mr. S. G. Smith) ruled that the amendment was out of order in that it involved an appropriation, and Ms ruling was upheld by Mr, Spaakor, whose decision was sought. Mr. E. Semple (Labour, Wellington East) said that if the scheme was going to prove worth while then the liability would increase in proportion as far as the guarantee of land wa3 concerned, and that would minimise the amount of money to be paid out to the unemployed. Mr. P. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) said that to safeguard State security and pay into the State Advances what the Department was not receiving to-day, the Government was going to use the Unemployment Pund. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) pointed out that the Bill covered persons not registered as unemployed, and he suggested that that aspect be taken into consideration. He also suggested that there should be a provision against the encouraging of default. Further, he considered that if the payment of the rent was to be guaranteed, then 'payment of rent in the towns should also be guaranteed. Mr. Coates indicated that there would be an opportunity of considering the clause before the Bill was considered in the Upper House. He referred to the amount of time the House had already spent on the measure, arid indicated that if the opposition to it was a policymatter the application of the closure would have to be considered. ' : The Leader of the Opposition moved the postponement of the clause, with a view of giving the Government an opportunity of considering where the money should come from. The motion was defeated by 39 votes On. the clause providing for the compulsory requisition of unused land, the Hou. A. D. McLeod (Government, Wairarapa) said it was possible that the clause might be used harshly against individuals, and ho urged that the clause be amended. There were occupiers of good land who were not utilising it to the. best advantage, and, it was desirable that thefre should be legislation that would drive them to improve their land or divest themselves of it, but there should be the right of appeal. ' j

Mr. Coates said that some, people looked on the clause as revolutionary, but he did not see the dangers to the same extent as they did. The Government did not want to create alarm or pass legislation in which an. injus^ tice might occur. He suggested that perhaps the position might be met if tho appeal were made to a Judge instead of to a Magistrate, as the Bill proposed, ■• . ■■■■..-. ; (Proceeding.)