Unemployment Bill Talk Almost Over

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1073, 10 September 1930, Page 7

Unemployment Bill Talk Almost Over

SUSTENANCE AGREED TO COMMITTEE STAGE PASSED Press Association WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Urgency was accorded the passage of the Unemployment Bill, which was further considered in Committee by the House of Representatives this evening. ijhE clause dealing with the appointment of associate members of the Unemployment Board was passed with an amendment, moved by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. S. G. Smith, providing that co-opted members should have full standing but no light t° vote. Two amendments submitted by the Minister were inserted in the clause dealing with the subsidiary functions of the board. The first provided authority to grant assistance not ouly to enable new works to be undertaken, but also to enable existing works to ba carried on. The second amend- I ment mad"; provision for power to j grant assistance to developmental and ■ other works, instead of ouly develop- i mental, as originally proposed. An amendment was moved bv Mr. ft. Semple (Labour—Wellington East) stipulating that wages paid on all works carried out or subsidised under this section should be subject to the award or agreement rates of wages. , ' The Chairman of Committees ruled the amendment out of order ou the ground that it involved an appropriation, but at the request of Air. i». j Fraser (Labour—Wellington Central i, , Mr. Speaker's ruling was sought. SPEAKER REVERSES RULING The Speaker stated that even if th : j amendment involved an extra charge | an the Unemployment Fund, it would ! net involve an extra charge on the i Consolidated Fund. It was therefore I in order. The Leader of the Opposition", the Right Hon. .1. G. Coates, said he did' not think it would be wise to make ?ach a stipulation as the amendment contained. The board should be left plenty of scope. Mr. H. T. Armstrong i Labour— Christchurch East) contended that the effect of failure to make some such amendment would be to undermine the Arbitration Court system. Mr. Semple asserted that the object of the amendment was to protect workers against unscrupulous employers. The Minister said he could not accept the amendment. He could assure the House, however, that as chairman of the board, he would take ample precaution that workers did not suffer at the hands of unscrupulous employers. The amendment was defeated by 45 votes to 22. • Mr. F. Langstone (Labour—\Vs»imarino) raised an objection to funds I aised largely from the contribution of workers being used to make grants or loans to enable persons to undertake developmental or other works. He contended that such assistance hould be confined to loans. The clause was passed. m PAYMENTS ONLY FOR WORK When the- sustenance allowance clause was under consideration Mr. Coates moved to add a proviso that so sustenance should be paid except in cases of ill-health, unless the recipient worked in return for money on the basis of the Arbitration Court rate of wages where applicable, the proviso not to come into effect until six months after the passing of the BUI. He contended it would be a “ad principle to pay money for nothing. He admitted it would be difficult to find work at first, and it was : tor that reason he suggested • that 1 the provision should not come into j eject for the first six months after ‘he passing of the Bill. The Leader of the Labour Party, j H. E. Holland, said the only in- i erpretation he could place on the amendment was that there should be *> sustenance if there was no work. '“Ue the Bill provided that susteuJ “ce should be paid only where work ■ould not be provided. The amendment would destroy the whole principle.

,3 r ‘ T'*' D. Lysnar (Reform —Gis"'rne* s ai<l there was no provision S’,. in tlle Bill that sustenance nid only be paid in cases where •t applicant had no means. J;“ e inistf i- said it was hoped that ’ ct the board was in full operation _ re would be very little need to My sustenance. r oteee ament * meut was lost on the

SUSTENANCE BENEFITS land'll/*' J Savage (Labour—Auck.l. ®„. vv est ) then moved an amendment rron- wor ding of the clause be noi?° sus tenance allowance shall cnneS!? t 0 any person, who is not a ? und” >° r .. t 0 Unemployment -bail k° uo sustenance allowance not ro ■ Pai< * to any P erson who Is the „sl IStere< * Tor employment,” with "ho , ect ot Providing that persons . are at present out of employ'ommfj cou *d not afford to pay the be rieK tlon ' should not for that reason Bind ° arre< * Troth the benefits of the

dment was rejected by 40 'oifsom'n , McKet ‘ n (Labour—Wellingnnemr.i moved that the period of tonar?i° y i? ent before which the sus- («, r „ H s allowance will be paid should *.**«■? from 14 to 8 days. This ma nt i, eate< f by 48 to IT. An amending by Air. Savage, providlor 2(1 i tbe allowance might be paid thet a lD!,te ad of 13 consecutive weeks The „“‘, lar fate by 41 votes to 20. 'ion tn ,. lu ' sttr then moved an addinau . tae clause of a provision that b, the ? recommendation being made luce mi T° arr b the sustenance allowontrih,.. 1 b ft Paid to any unemployed ng th,. L to the fund, notwithstandttent rJ 1 , Period of his unemployle has v 8 * ess than 14 days, or that ‘oaten on 6ll already in receipt of the 13 cnn« ce allowance for more than »onld f, CUtlve weeks. He stated this J iaed >f ee t objections that had been »orker« y tae deputation of waterside »a Ua i ’ It would obviate cases of r > hpinorkers or intermittent work'h de Prived of the benefits of of Wor £ m consequence ot' a few hours The ??? en< *inent was adopted. hJ th»,‘bister's amendment, providb? B f 110 sustenance allowance Ehall -i* a ujiless the recipient has had land atas residence in New Zea--7 was adopted. Labour amendment to fix the

sustenance allowance at the definite figures mentioned in the Bill instead of an amount not exceeding those figures was defeated by 41 votes to 19. A further amendment to fix the maximum allowance at 30s instead of 21s was defeated by 41 to IS. The sustenance allowance clause was passed at 1 a.m. The committee stage was completed.