RELIEF FINANCE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 September 1938, Page 7

RELIEF FINANCE

PROVISION UNDER SECURITY SCHEME DECLARED INADEQUATE BY OPPOSITION. HON. W. NASH ON RANGE OF BENEFITS. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The provisions in the Social Security Bill for benefits to be paid .to unemployed persons provoked a long discussion during the Committee stages of the Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday. Members of the Opposition claimed that the Government was not making adequate provision for unemployment. The Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, in reply, declared that the Opposition was not in sympathy with the principle of social security. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. A. Hamilton, said he believed that the Minister’s estimate of the cost of unemployment benefits under the Bill was about £1,500,000, and he would I’ke to know whether that was the only provision that was to be made for unemployment. Many of the present so-called public works jobs were really relief schemes, and it was difficult to see how those persons, and others at present provided for under the Employment Promotion Fund, were provided for in the Bill. Mi- J, Hargest (Opposition, Awarua) mentioned the case of a young man, possibly not much over 16, who might wish to wait for an opening in a particular calling. It seemed that he would .have to take any work offered or be refused unemployment benefits.

Mr W. A. Bodkin .(Opposition, Central Otago), who said that the Unemployment Fund, as far as women were concerned, has been “a complete washout,” asked whether placement officers were to be stationed in every district to decide whether women were fit to undertake whatever work might be offering. “Will this be in substitution for the Employment Promotion Fund or will it be collaterial with it,” asked Mr W. J. Polson (Opposition, Stratford). “I am not sure whether this is the wisest way to deal with unemployment, because I do not think the Minister wants to see a dole complex in New Zealand.” STATEMENT BY MINISTER. “The Employment Promotion Act is repealed by the Bill, so that there can be no duplication,” the Minister replied. “The payment of benefits will be under the control of the commissioners. Every person between 16 and 60 who cannot get ■ ordinary employment will qualify for benefits. Anyone who is not taking reasonable steps to find work or who will not take suitable work when it is offered will be disqualified, and disqualification will also be imposed on persons who have not been in the country for 12 months. A married woman who can show that her husband cannot maintain her will qualify for benefits.” Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton); “I know of a case where four methylated spirits drinkers, who are living together, are being paid sustenance today.” Mr Nash: “They won’t get the benefit.” Mr Kyle: “Will they be left to starve?” Mr Nash: “No, we will do everything possible for them.” Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo) said that the commissioners appointed under the Bill would have a he-man’s job to handle unemployment benefits alone. He believed there were 1200 persons engaged in the Placement Service today.

Th Minister: “That is a dream of the member for Waitomo.” . Mr Broadfoot: “And this social security or insecurity, as it. has been called, is a dream of the Minister of Finance.”

Mr S. G. Smith (Opposition, New Plymouth): “A nightmare!” “In spite of everything they say about supporting the principle of the Bill,” the Minister said, “one now and then hears' definite opposition to; the Bill from the Opposition benches. They say they are in favour of the Bill —but. The people of the country want every clause in this Bill to go through, and for that reason the Opposition dare not say too much against it, but they know what they would do if they had charge of the country. “We are not opposed to the Bill, but it is so difficult to get a straight statement from the Minister,” said Mr Smith. “The people don’t want a Bill that will fall down under its own weight.” “NO UNEMPLOYMENT POLICY.” Mr Broadfoot said that because an election was at hand the Minister endeavoured to cloud the issue concerning the financing of the scheme, but the Bill would not come into effect until after the election, and after deluding the people the Minister would disillusion them by a watering down of the benefits. It was obvious that the Government had only a sustenance scheme and no unemployment policy. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, said that sustenance might be necessary to tide people over between jobs. It was ridiculous for the Opposition to suggest that the Government would be loss sympathetic to the unemployed than its predecessors, but if a man was offered work and was fit to take it he should do so. That would be the line taken with the unemployed. After further discussion the closure was applied. Members of the Opposition called for a division on the closure motion, which was carried by 49 votes to 19, and the clause was allowed to go through on the voices.