GOVERNMENT UNDER FIRE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 702, 29 June 1929, Page 12

GOVERNMENT UNDER FIRE

Discussion of Unemployment

LONG DEBATE IN HOUSE

(THE sty's Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. THE flood gates of Parliamentary oratory were opened wide at 3.30 yesterday afternoon when the first debate of the session on the Imprest Supply Bill opened. Labour directed a vigorous attack on the Government, not forgettingthe previous Administration. Unemployment formed the main theme of the discussion. The total appropriations under the Bill are £992,000. The hours went by on verbose wings, so to speak, and member after member had his say. Some of the rank and file of the Government looked restive, but evidently were under orders not to speak.

Advancing under a verbal barrage of unemploj’ment argument, each member used his full time, and it was apparent from the beginning that the House was going to listen-in for a long time. For the early part of the debate the Government benches were silent, Labour trying vainly to draw Ministers. After Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) and Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) had had their say, Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) expressed the opinion that Reform should have something to say on unemployment. Labour had taken the first say, as the subject was so important.

Mr. Coates: We shall do that at the second reading. Mr. Armstrong meted out strong criticism of the Government's public works policy. It had discharged as many men as it had employed. The city councils were not always able to utilise Government subsidies because of the conditions attached. To get the £25.000, a local body would have to spend £IOO,OOO owing to the cost of the materials involved. Mr. J. W. Munro (Dunedin North) made a plea for the better treatment of Public Works employees. Mr. C. L. Carr (Timaru) hoped for the setting up of an Unemployment Board.

, Mr. H. E. Holland (Bailer) expressed amazement at the failure of the Government to answer the arguments put up by Labour speakers. As a matter of courtesy a reply might have been expected. ‘‘l want the Government to give the reason for its silence,” he said, “and to ask the Prime Minister if that were going to be his attitude toward Labour.” RAISING OF WAGES

The Hon. E. A. Ransom (Minister of Public Works) rose to reply. Dealing with Mr. Savage’s statement that local bodies were called on to bear more than they should in regard to unemployment, he said that the numbers of unemployed, had not increased generally throughout New Zealand. There had been a marked improvement, and calls on his department were becoming gradually less. He claimed that the Government’s raising of wages had induced men to seek work with the Government rather than with private employers. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): Do you put that forward seriously? Great Scot? Mr. Ransom said that though 1.100 men were registered in Auckland, this represented only one per cent, or the population. The figures did not support Mr. Savage’s claim that Auckland unemployment was the worst he had ever seen. The Minister said that in a certain degree statements that the Highways Board was putting off mac were true, but the board was so constituted in its activities that it could ppt keep a given number of men in work. It was wrong to say that the department was putting off men and trying to reduce the rate of pay. Encouragement was given to men to earn more than 14s a day. PROVISION OF HUTMENTS A problem that faced the department, continued Mr. Ransom, was that of the provision of hutments which were given to the men free of charge. The department had £300,000 worth of these hutments and was continually buying tents and hutments for the men. There was talk of dissatisfaction with the Public Works Department. The Minister had visited a lot of camps during the past few months and there had been no complaints. Three thousand and four men had been put on Public Works since the Government took office. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East): And 2,500 were put off. Mr. Coates said that the Public Works of the country had been turned into relief works. Mr. H. E. Holland grinned and Mr. Coates said he was not going to he led away by the jibes of the Labour Party and its leader. When the Reform Party was in power Labour had spoken of the Government forcing down wages. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton): You did it. Mr. Coates: That is not true. Mr. McCombs: It is the only thing you did do. Speaking of men on railway construction works in his district, Mr. Coates said that one gang of five earned Is 2d an hour, another gang of seven Is 6d, another 9d an hour, and another earned Sd an hour.

Mr. H. E. Holland: That's wliat they got. “WORSE UNDER REFORM’’ Sir. Coates said that the men were all solid and reliable, and well known in New Zealand camps. It was up to the Government to see, in regard to the Public Works workers' agreement, that the men who had given faithful service should be given pride of place, and their contracts should not he allowed to expire without renewal. The Government had made a mistake in not pursuing the Industrial Conference. As a Labour speakerhad said, the position with regard to unemployment. was worse under United than Reform. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Oroua): That is not true. Mr. Coates went on to criticise the railway administration. Mr. P. Langstone (Waimarino) mentioned the w-ealth of the banks, failure of private enterprise, and security of fobs for M.P.’s, if there were no election, and the need for industrial and land development. There was plenty of vigour in his speech, and several times he had to be called to order. PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY After the debate had dragged on till 10.35 the Prime Minister got to his feet to speak. He wanted to-re-miud members of the position the Government w-as in. There were grave difficulties to be met. The Government had done all possible in the unemployment problem. From May 24, 1926, to March 31, 1927, the Government had spent £130,000 on unemployment relief. From April 1, 1927, to March 31, 1925, £197,565 was spent by the Government and £35,106 had been advanced in subsidies to local bodies. From April 1, 1928, to March 31. 1929, the Government had spent £729,393 and had advanced £66,566 in subsidies. Since the Government had come into power £125,000 had been given or promised in way of subsidies, and 5,500 men had been sent to Government works, including forestry. On June 1, 11.556 men had been in Government employment, and on June 22, 12,702 men had been on Government jobs. There had been no reduction in the number of new employed, because of the completion of a number of highway works. How could the Government find work for men who had been put off completed jobs unless new jobs were found? It was not practical and never had been so. Members were crying out and yet of offers of £25,000 to each of the four centres, only Wellington had accepted the offer. Could he be blamed for not finding money to provide work? Also an unemployment committee had been meeting regularly. What more could be done? it was the beginning of the session and if members were going to plague the Government, he wanted to know where he was. The Government started with a deficit of £577,000, and a deficit of £2,000,000 in the State superannuation funds. If, with such serious questions, of which unemployment was a part, members criticised the Imprest Supply Bill, he wanted to know where he was. Mr. Fraser: So do we. We want to kno-v -where we stand on unemployment. Sir Joseph asked for consideration of the Government proposals. Unemployment figures had varied during the Government’s office.

Mr. McCombs: They’ve gone up steadily, month by month. Sir Joseph explained that the numbers of employed in the Public Works Department varied. Unemployment had been caused by the oversupply of labour through too much immigration Hear.) There were to be no more by the previous Government. (Hear, labourer immigrants. LAND THE SOLUTION

Under the Government’s railway policy 4,000 or 5,000 men could be employed in the next two or three months, but the solution of the problem was land settlement. (Hear, hear.) This would get rid of the surplus of unemployed. In an eloquent address Mr. Holland made a plea for immediate action of the Government regarding unemployment. Money had been found in millions during the war, a work of destruction, and surely money could be found to provide employment and works of construction. Earthquake restoration would cost £1,000,000 at a conservative estimate, and would absorb an army of men. The Labour Party would not forego the right of criticism, but criticism would be fair.

The Labour Party was behind any party that was out to solve New Zealand’s greatest problem. “WITHHOLD CRITICISM”

The Hon. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) urged the withholding of criticism till proposals for the alleviation of unemployment were brought down. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) blamed the war and not Reform immigration for unemployment. Industrial development was the solution. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said that it was absurd to blariie the war and not immigration. He said Christchurch had availed itself of the £25,000 offered. Mr. D. Jones (Mid-Canterbury), criticising Labour, said that Mr. L. J. Howard (Christchurch South) had said in Christchurch that the time was not ripe for the Labour Government as the working man was too well off.

Mr. Howard: That is a deliberate mis-statement.

Mr. Speaker made him withdraw the remark, and Mr. Jones went on to criticise the system of government through the heads of department. At 1 a.m. the Hon. A. H. Atmore was addressing a rather somnolent audience.

The detate was continued after the telegraph office closed by Mr. W. J. Broadfoot, who claimed that machinery and science did not limit labour, but opeued opportunity for it. He considered the time had arrived for introducing rationalisation into industry. When he heard members saying that the fate of the country depended on the development of secondary industries, all he could say was, “God help the country.” Secondary industries would automatically develop themselves if the primary industries were placed on a right footing. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Local Bodies Empowering Relief of Unemployment Extension Bill was then put through all stages and 1 In reply to Mr. Coates, Sir Joseph Ward said that the usual valedictory references would he made on Tuesday. and the Address-in-Reply motion would be introduced on Wednesday. The House rose at 2.5 till 2.30 on Tuesday.