“I WAS MISREPORTED”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 785, 4 October 1929, Page 10

“I WAS MISREPORTED”

MR. A. SPENCER DISCUSSES ENGLAND'S DOLE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE * **l state emphatically that I was rr. is re ported.” said Mr. A‘d ert Spencer, president of tP*e Employers’ Association, this morning concerning a report which appeared elsewhere alfeg ng that He had remarked that the unemployment insurance was a wartime measure. J LS London Act came Into fGi back to Xew Zealand a set of insurance stamps,’ continued Mr. Spencer. Again in 1&23. when be went to England, he employed, a chauffeur to drive his car and this man. who was a good worker, detested the Insurance dole. Huge sums of money had been spent 1 in unemployment insurance in the Old* Country, but this had added nothing to the production of Great Britain. Under i the Safeguarding Act. England found j work for more than 200,000 men who , had been producing nothing. "It was certainly not suggested at the employers’ meeting that men ; should be allowed to starve. In this i young country, which is only partly de- j veioped. there is no occasion for any- i one to starve. There is plenty of work j for all, but it requires men at the head ; •• : - sense.’’ said Mr. Spencer.The country was crying out for roads and bridges and the cultivation of Crown lands, while thousands of pounds from motor-taxes were waiting to be utilised. During his stay in England he had noted that in every town visited many young people were on the dole and refused to take up any work. Seasonal ; w 3 rkei 5 took tvaotag season, went home, and applied for the ! dole. Sailors who wanted to rest for a spell did the same thing. The well-to-do people in villages found it impos-'j sible to secure labour of any descrip- I tion. He had suggested to many | people the introduction of a scheme in which even-one receiving the dole . should do two days’ work for the amount they received. This would re- ; duce the amount paid out, consider- \ ably. Mention had been made elsewhere of the huge exports of Great Britain. £. §43.000,000, but he considered that or. the basis of population this was not such a great total. Moreover, the dole was not as responsible for this amount as had been the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That had saved the situation. Otherwise, under the dole alone, the exports might have declined : to half that amount. Xot only was an additional 200,000 employed under the i Safeguarding Act. but new factories ; sprang up and industries generally ex- j panded. The export figures, therefore. J could not by any means be the result ; of the dole.