RELIEF WORK

Hokitika Guardian, 25 February 1933, Page 6

RELIEF WORK

ALLOCATIONS DURING: WINTER

MINISTER ANSWERS QUESTION

WELLINGTON, February 22. In'answering questions in the House

yesterday, the, Hon. A. Hamilton said that although he could not agree to abolish the fortnight without sustenance which a man at present has to complete before ’being granted sustenance allowance, lie was hopeful that the present .allocations for relief work would be maintained during the coming winter.

Mi- AV. A. \ r eitch (Wanganui), m asking for Information as to the state of the Unemployment Fund said that •a statement would allay anxiety on the part of unemployed men and tlieir families. It would also give them an indication as to how they were to be provided for during the coining winter, and enable local bodies and unemployi ment committees to judge to what extent local relief would be necessary. He asked the Minister to say to what extent allocations would be made, and to what extent food supplies would be available.

SPENDING ITS INCOME. The Minister replied that it had been 'anticipated that during the summer registrations would fall off, but they had not done so to the extent anticipated' spending its income today but there was a casli balance. However, there were a number of obligations to be met, and it was difficult to make a statement showing the exact state of the fund. It was hoped to be able to maintain the present allocations during the winter. The value of local help was also realised by him, and lie thought there would be sufficient funds to see them through the winter.

Answering Mr Richards (Roskill), who pointed cut that families placed on sustenance had to wait a . fortnight for their first pay, the Minister said that it was the universal practice to require men, on registering or renewing their registrations, to stand down for a fortnight, before they could be considered eligible for relief. It was not possible to make a payment covering that period, and if a man had been in steady employment for some time he could afford to stand down for a fortnight before receiving sustenance. If the rule -were departed from it would prove a serious drain on the unemployment funds.

SUSTENANCE COVERS RENT. Sustenance paid to the unemployed is supposed to cover the amount they should pay for rent, according to a statement made to the House by Air Hamilton in reply to a question «slw eel by the Leader of the Opposition.

Six unemployed AYestport workers, with .more than twenty children in all. had received notices to vacate tlieir homes, • said Mr .Holland, who . asked the- Minister whether he would apply the principle of the small farms legislation to these cases and arrange for the rents to be paid out of the Unemployment Fund, or tae some other immediate steps to ensure that the families would not be left homeless. The Buller Hospital Board and AVestport Borough Council were botli unable to make provision for these cases.

The Afinister said if city relief workers reeieved the same treatment as men on the small farm scheme they would bo much worse off.

ATr Holland: “I am asking that the same principle be applied. The relief worker in the city said the Minister, paid Ins rent out of his sustenance. Linder the small farm scheme men received less, because part of tlieir sustenance was paid in rent.

Mr Holland: AV ill you explain how a man getting 23s a week can pay £1 for rent? The Minister said that' that was a different question. Under the small farm scheme men got £1 a week for six months, but of this 10s a week was hold as rent. If city men were put on the same basis as the small farms scheme it would mean a big saving to the fund. Sustenance paid to men in towns was a regarded a« sufficient to cover rent. ,