UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY

Hokitika Guardian, 9 December 1930, Page 5

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY

WHY IT WAS CHOSEN. EXPLANATION BY MR MUNNS. Aspects of the Unemployment Act were explained by the Chief Government Whip, Mr G. C. iVlunns, M.P., for Roskill, Auckland, in an address to the Open Forum organisation. Mr Munns* was chairman or the Select Committee which considered the legislation when in bill form. Mr'Munns emphasised that the unemt* c ' ployment. Bill was a non-party measured A' The Labour Party had been anxious to see the age of contributors considerably lowered, our Parliament was of opinion that had 'the age ; been reduced to 16 the risk would 1 have been run’of paying sustenance to boys when they left school instead of rearing a race of selfreliant workers. The main object of the Act was to provide work, not sustenance. The legislation was experimental and aii attempt to meet the position, and no risk could be taken of so overburdening the measure at the start as to cause its coniplete breakdown. Bv the payment of the levy a man insured himself against unemployment, and. any man coming on the fund when out of work, and' claiming what he had actually paid in’ for, had every right to receive' it. It wat not;.charity. “It* after every avenue had been exhausted, work could not be found for the man, and due inquiry showed that he was entitled to sustenance, it would be paid. It had to be kept in mind, however, that the board existed to provide work, and if a man ; sent to a job refused to take it he would not receive any sustenance. Levy Best Method. Considerable exception had been taken to what some people called the “poll tax,” but there must be much greater resentment in Australia, where the payment amounted to a shilling in the pound. Last year New Zealand spent, roughly, £1,500,000 on the relief of unemployment, but was it a help to send ment to work long ‘distances from their families, to' whose upheepj in some cases, they were'able to contribute from their earnings only a few shillings weekly ? The position was so desperate that the Government "took the action it did and introduced the proposals ..that were now the law'of; the' land. , Other suggestions to replace the levy were advanced, hut had been rejected. An additional • half-penny could have been charged on hvery letter.-,-.posted, but that - would have been unfair to the small business man, who was having at present just as hard a time as the worker. The idea of a twopenny tax on tea—one of the necessaries of life— liod also been ie- , jected, as had the proposal for a grad- ' uated, tax, it having been shown that in one instance under the method it would have cost £7OOO to collect £ I SOO. It had been decided that the personal payment would be the best in the circumstances; it brought the position home ... to everybody. Help From Board. Illustrating directions in which the board would function,“Mr Munns took for an example the case of a man who, desirious of painting his.house, had sufficient cash to purchase the paint, but not enough to pay for the labour. The board would advance the difference and the money'could be repaid at the rate of five or. ten shillings a week, as suited the householder. In the meantime, the man had his house painted, work was provided for some other man, and money would be automatically circulated amongst the tradespeople. Similarly, money could be advanced to a farmer who wished his paddocks stumped. It was sincerely hoped that local committees would be set up in each centre and enable the job to be tackled without delay. ?< “I believe the Act is on right lines,’ added Mr Munns. “There is naturally objection, to the payment of the levy, hut I would rather pay double or treble the amount than not see the position relieved. Benefits to Women. In reply to a question as to why women had not been brought within the scope of tlie Act, Mr Munns iepeated his statement that care had beer taken not to overburden the fund in its first year of operation. “We dare not take the risk of breaking the legislation down at the commencement,” he said. There might not have been anything left in the fund in three months if the scope of the Act had been extended as suggested. The hoard die • exist to provide work for women; and if it were possible to function .on < larger scale at a time when the func was. built up sufficiently,, and, an idea' had been gained of how it would opei - ate. the benefits would he extended to women. General Criticism. A general discussion followed. The opinion that the Act would result in further depression and would automatically break' down was expressed by Mr IT. Haddow. Mr Page said that a re- ‘ duction of tariffs, rather than increased taxation, was a proper cure for unem-

ployment. Tlie powers of the hoard were too wide and too discretionary, said Mrs M. B. Soijak. : Women contributed to the levy through the Consolidated Fund. yet. enjoyed none'of the insurance. She thought that an amendment shrould he made in this direction. Mr A. E. Robinson said that the system, at present an insurance, would eventually become a dole. The Act was ill-constructed and should; not have gone through in its present form. Mr J. R.ushworth defended the principle of the Act. but said that it would do nothing to remove any of the causes of unemployment.