BASIS OF RELIEF

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 91, 14 October 1932, Page 10

BASIS OF RELIEF

BOARD CRITICISED

CITY AMD COUNTRY WORK

NO DEFINITE POLICY

Protests against the administration of unemployment relief were made in the House of Representatives to-day during the discussion on the Imprest Supply Bill. Particular reference was made to the attitude of the Unemployment Board in forcing men from cities to. the country, and a plea was made for a definite announcement by the Board of its policy.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) said there was a growing volume of discontent among the relief workers against the treatment that was being accorded to them, and the Government was ignoring the position which had arisen. The way back to ordinary employment was practically barred against the men because of the conditions ini-' posed by the Unemployment Board. Under these conditions the men were denied the opportunity of obtaining new work, and he suggested that the rate of pay per day be increased. If the Government could not'see its way'clear to increase the amount of relief, it .could by paying on a trade union basis, give the men more opportunity to seek' other avenues- of work. The present policy was getting them into a bog. The local bodies were getting such a vast amount of work done that they would require very little more to be carried out for several years to come. The treatment accorded to the B2 men was inhuman, -and it was a scandal that the Government had. not brought to finality the question of whose was the responsibility for the care of. these men. At the present time, neither the hospital boards nor the Unemployment Board would accept the responsibility He appealed to the Minister of Employment and. the Minister of Health to clear the matter up as soon as possible. HOMES BROKEN TJP. Mr. A. Harris (Government, Waitemata) asked what was the policy of the Unemployment Board in respect to city and country work. He cited the case of the Takapuna Borough Council which was prepared to engage men on productive work in the borough, and he said he could not understand why the men should be driven into the country and their homes broken up. -It was possible for men to be engaged on such productive work as the approaches to the proposed Auckland Harbour Bridge. I am not going to sit down quietly and see 173 homes'in my constituency broken up," he said.. "The time has arrived when the gloves have to come off." He said he did not know whether the policy of the Unemployment Board had been changed, but he claimed there was no justification to send the" men into camps. He asked the Acting-Minis-ter of Employment to say definitely that the 173 men would not be knocked off the work, a.nd to say that the Takapuna Borough Council could employ the men as long as the work was satisfactory. The council had sewerage and road extension work to be done. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Government, Central Otago): When will you get rid of the unemployed, doing that soit of work? Mr. Harris: This is work in the ordinary way which might not have been carried out for many years under loan expenditure. He stressed that it was work desirable'for the extension, and development of the borough. NO INFORMATION. Mr. E. J. Howard -(Labour, Christchurch South) said he was pleased to hear the remarka of Mr. Harris as a member pledged to support the Govern, ment. Mr. Harris had given a blind pledge to the Government, yet he did not know what the Government was doing and had to beg for information. "If I was a follower of the Government and I did not know what they were doing they would lose one member," he said. Mr. Howard said that the board did not even tell the Minister. Voluntary organisations in the cities trying to help the Government were insulted. Mr. Howard referred to the difficulty ,of tenants in meeting their liabilities. He suggested that Government tenants should be asked to pay interest only while the present trouble lasted. "POLICY OF STARVATION." Mr. E. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) said that the Ministers of the Crown were looking upon their jobs as purely honorary and were not taking enough interest in the administration of their portfolios. This was one of the reasons for the unsatisfactory Btate of affairs. The men who had been.induced to take up small farms were sadly disillusioned. They had been told that they could earn £2 per week,' but what they really received was rations, and so much of their time was taken up in working for farmers that they had no time to work for themselves. The small-farm scheme was creating an army of peasants.who had no hope for the future. The unemployment policy was nothing more than a policy of starvation. The unemployed workers were not getting a fair deal. There was no sympathy in the administration. Up to the present the Government had don© nothing for. the unemployed boys except make appeals to farmers to provide work for them. He had been responsible for placing half-a-dozen boys on farms, and they did not feel happy over their situation. Two of them had had to desert their farms because they were starved. The policy was only tending to the creation of a large number of unskilled labourers. Mr.' G. B. Sykes (Government, Masterton), said a large number of boys had been placed on farms in. his district. Those boys were' being well treated. He defended the State Advances Department, which was dealing sympathetically with cases of distress. .. - -' Mr. D. W. Coleman (Labour, Gisborne) said that when Labour members had first declared it'would be impossible for men to "make both ends meet" on the rates of pay received from the Unemployment Board, various Ministers had pointed out that these amounts should not be regarded as wages but as sums to supplement what they could earn in private employment. Mr. Coleman contended it had become absolutely impossible for men to obtain private work in addition to relief work because of the number of days that they had to work to receive the same amount as had formerly been paid to them from the Unemployment Board's funds. PLACING YOUTHS. Mr. S. G. Smith (Government, New Plymouth) said that the Government had made strenuous efforts to meet the situation. -Where appeals had been made to the State Advances Superintendent arrangements had been . made to tide the workers over their- difficulties. The allocation of relief expenditure was based on a proper system of registration in each district, and investigation into the circumstances, and although there had been talk of abuses nobody on the Opposition side had suggested a different method of allocation. The Unemployment Board was entitled to sympathy and consideration.

Mr. !F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): It ought to be sacked.

llf the board was sacked, said Mr. Smith, the problem, would still remain. Under the existing circumstances the very best had been done. Unemployment among youth was one of the greatest tragedies of unemployment. In

December, 1930, there were 9826 apprentices in skilled trades, and that number had dropped to 6910 last December. Many apprentices had had their apprenticeships cancelled because firms had gone out of business. Mr. Smith referred to statements that there was no work for 20,0u0 boys who left school every year. Of 16,467 who left school last year all had gone into occupations with the exception of 1358, who had gone home and 1544 whose destinations were unknown. He quoted from the Education report in substantiating his statements. Dealing with unemployment relief he contrasted the position in New Zealand with that in Australia and said that in New South Wales last year, with nearly 150,000 unemployed only 650 were on relief work liv^f?' Eangstone: How did th«> others

"On the dole," Mr. Smith replied. With a change of Government in New South Wales there had been a cUje of the relief policy. Eeverting to the P/ Ob. lem ln N^ Zealand he said it had been found that only 10 per cent, of the boys could be absorbed^" trade and commerce in the city The SK "z-izi- taa •*» &. ri going to do. He claimed that the pYc ture painted by Mr. Smith was no? a correct one. A large number of W ZTtXTg ,T\- He 83id that *E Zu t ' whlch was th 8 worst half of the year, the board had spent less than half its revenue, though all Hp ™l theypleatled i^meient funds He made an appeal to the Government to do something to keep tenants. M : r. J A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) protested against the Government tak ing^men from their wives- and children The camps would bring about revolt he said. The Government should endeao7good!m. crn the "^ * >$& tnfv* n Se v 1? 16 (^our, Wellington East) asked what hope there was for boys under the existing condition! The door of opportunity had been banged and bolted in the faces of youne X'siS: 1*yet the iSue ™s **

.Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) said the Unemployment Board was not sympathetic and was endeavouring to create compulsory divorce m many homes by driving men into camp.

MrV^: \ Barnard (Labour, Napier) said that the responsibility of which the Hospital Boards had been relieved regarding the . unemployed had not been assumed by the Unemployment Board. (Proceeding.)