Unemployment Bill Debate Continues

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1032, 24 July 1930, Page 6

Unemployment Bill Debate Continues

OPINIONS MEMBERS’ OPPOSITION Press Association WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The debate on the Unemployment Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives today. Mr. C. L. Carr (Labour —Timaru) said he trusted that men out of work would lie considered as valuable to the State as the machine which had displaced them. Mr. J. T. Hogan (Independent— Rangitikei) said that the stimulation given to immigration by past Governments had had a detrimental effect. He complimented the present Government on at least doing something to met the unemployment problem. Mr. A. W. Hall (Reform —Hauraki) said that the fact that the Government had introduced an unemployment insurance scheme amounted to a confession that it was incapable of dealing with the situation, while its proposal to set up a permanent board indicated that it considered the trouble was insurable. He did not think this view could be justified in a young country like New Zealand He urged that the main function of the Unemployment Board should not be to provide sustenance, but to find remedies for any economic difficulties arising. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central) said personally he accepted the principle of the Bill, but he was seriously opposed to some details. He could not understand why women had been excluded from the scheme, because women were becoming more and more established in industry. If the Bill were allowed to pass without some provision for the employment ot women, there would be vigorous protests from one end of the country to the other. He took strong exception tq the flat rate of 30s. Taxation should be sought from people who possessed the ability to pay. Mr. R. W. Hawke (Government — Kaiapoi) said the Bill was an honest attempt to grapple with a very serious matter. While it would not be agreed that it could meet every situation, it was undoubtedly the foundation of a scheme tha tcould be amended and improved in future as circumstances warranted. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour — Christchurch East) said it had to be admitted there might be some few individuals who would prefer to exist on a meagre sustenance allowance rather than to work, but provision had to be made for thousands of others who genuinely wanted employment and who could not get it. He urged the Government to fix contributions on the basis of one-third from workers, one-third from employers and onethird from the Government. IMMIGRATION NOT RESPONSIBLE Mr. A. Hamilton (Reform—Wallace) disagreed with the contention that immigration was responsible for unemployment. He thought some of the conditions and restrictions imposed by trade uniouism might be blamed for the failure to provide work in some cases. It would never be possible lo persuade people to go back to the land in any great numbers until the stand ard of living of farmers had been raised. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour- - Napier) submitted that the Govern ment had been too timid in framing the Bill. It did not embody the principle of calling on industry to bear the burden of its own depression. Mr. R. A. Wright (Reform—Wellington Suburbs) said he would oppose anything in the nature of a sustenance clause in the Bill, because it would destroy the spirit of independence in the working man. He could not agree that in a country such as New Zealand it would be absolutely impossible for a man to get work. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon) asked whether there was anything more likely to sap the independence of the worker than inability to get work. Men ■%ho at the outset had revolted against going to charitable aid boards for assistance had ultimately reached a state where they went regularly for help without any hesitation at all. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent— Stratford) expressed the opinion that the Bill embodied more satisfactory proposals than the report of the Unemployment Committee, because those who received the greatest benefit paid their fair, share. The success of the scheme would depend largely on the administration of the board. "RIGHT TO ALLOWANCE” •The Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Reform —Dunedin West) said it should be settled as-a matter of Government policy whether the sustenance allowance was to be a question of right or whether it was to be subject to the discretion of the board. If the latter was the case, it was little better than the present system of charitable aid. Referring to the flat rate of contributions, Mr. Stewart said that membeVs were considerably in the dark how this might be affected by the Budget. Unless the Budget contained something that would have the effect of distributing the burden on a more equitable basis, there would be some justification for Labour members’ objections. Replying to an interjection, Mr. Stewart said he had insufficient time to deal with the whole problem of the causes of unemployment, but he believed at the back of the situation was the inability of the world’s gold supply to keep up with the production of wealth, thereby hindering exchange. Another difficulty was the tendency among nations to create high tariff walls, thereby retarding distribution. Mr. W. Lee Martin (Labour—Raglan) said he was disappointed with the Bill as a measure for the purpose of curing unemployment. The country was looking for a more determined effort to grapple with the problem. The proposal to place a polltax on the male population was a most unscientific way of meeting the situation. No attempt had been made to get down to root causes. Responsibility was merely being shifted from one set of shoulders to another. Mr. G. C. Munns (Government— Roskill) voiced approval of the provisions of the Bill, stating it was the duty of the House to adopt effective legislation as soon as possible. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Reform — Thames) said the Bill seemed to have been made a weapon for an attack on the Reform Party. The Bill should be considered on its merits for the purpose for which it was introduced. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour—Christchurch South) said there was no obligation on the Labour Party to keep the present Government in office. If it did not “deliver the goods” it would follow the same course as the Reform Party. He looked on the Bill as a means of opening up dis-

cussion on the subject, and it had achieved that object. He trusted that it would be liberally amended in committee. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment; and the House rose at midnight until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.