THE SUSTENANCE REGULATIONS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 22 January 1931, Page 10

THE SUSTENANCE REGULATIONS

INSURANCE ASPECT

RESTRICTION OF BENEFIT TO WORKERS

Disappointment with the sustenance regulations was voiced in Christchurch bv Labour supporters and social wOlivers. It was pointed out that the regulations would he of little assistance to those in need of help. On the otliei hand. Mr W. E. Leadlcy, a member of the Unemployment Board, said that the aim of the hoard was to provide work, not sustenance (reports the “Times’ ). Several aspects of the regulations were criticised by Mr H. \\ or roll, secretary of the General Labourers’ Union, who has been closely in touch with unemployment matters for a number of years. He said that he wanted to know where the board got its authority to reduce the sustenance period to five weeks, when the Act authorised thirteen weeks. Such a decision simply meant that the unemployed would still have to go to the Hospital Board for help. Mr Worrell said that the scheme was looked upon ns ail insurance policy against unemployment. The workers had carried out their part by paying the premium, but tlic Government had failed to carry out its obligations. He pointed out that application for sus--tenance had to be dated Ist February, and after that there was a fourteen days’ inquiry period. That brought the first available date for the payment of sustenance to 14tli February, and the next quarter’s levy was due oil Ist March. Under such conditions, the unemployed would have no chance of paying the levy. A PUBLIC LIST The question was also raised by Mr Worrall as to whether an unemployed man who had been granted exemption from the payment of the levy would be able to draw the sustenance allowance, because the Act stated that only contributors could receive benefit. Exception was taken hy Mr Worrall to the announcement that a list of those who were drawing sustenance pay would be made available at the Post Office. If such a list was open only to the Hospital Board’s Benevolent Committee, it would he all right, he said, but lie wanted to know if it was i also for the use of employers. If it was, was there any penalty provided' for divulging the information contained ? The scheme was one for insurance, and liad been paid for by the workers. He asked, liad a man to lose all his self-respect by having the fact broadcast that he was in receipt of the allowance.

The regulation providing that no sustenance allowance would be paid to men unemployed because of a strike or a lock-out was also criticised by Mr Worrall. He said that he could not find fault with its application in respect to a strike, because then the workers took the responsibility, but if men were shut out from work through no fault of their own they should be entitled to the allowance. . NO AMOUNT SET ASIDE “No amount has been set aside foi 4 the payment of sustenance,” said Mr W. E. Leadlcy, a member of the Unemployment Board, when the question was put to him yesterday. “We can’t do it, because we don’t know liow many applications there will be.” Mr Lcadley added that already the board had spent £83,000 in providing work. The sum of £150,000 had been received as the first quarter’s contributions. In referring to the period of five weeks which the board had fixed as the maximum permitted for the payment of sustenance allowances, Mr Leadlev said that the period during which it could be paid could be fixed by the board under the Act, which permitted payment up to thirteen weeks. “The board does not want to develop the dole system,” he added. ■ “The whole idea of the hoard is to get the men to work, but the board recognises that sustenance will have to he paid iii certain cases.” i . The position of men who might be without work for a year was mentioned to Mr Leadlev, and it was pointed out that payment of an allowance for

fifteen weeks throughout the year would not he of much value. Ilis answer was that special eases could he submitted to the board, which would deal with each on its merits.

NOT WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDED

Mr J. McCombs, M.P., intends to deal with the regulations fully when he goes to Wellington with a deputation to interview the Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. Cjr. Smith) on the question of unemployment in Christchurch. Discussing the regulations he said that the board was not dealing with the question very courageously. The five-week period for the payment of sustenance was not what Parliament had intended. Mr McCombs said that he did not think that it was the duty of the board to legislate in such a manner. It was the duty of the board to give effect to the will of Parliament. Not only did Parliament intend that sustenance should he paid for thirteen weeks, but it intended that at the end of thirteen weeks a man could put in another application and draw sustenance for a further thirteen weeks if necessarv. “Personally, I think that the unemployment scheme has got. to be made a real insurance,” added Mr McCombs. “If a private company had entered into ail insurance contract, the law would never have permitted the company to vary the contract after it liad been drawn up. The workers paid their levy in terms of the Act, which was the contract the workers understood that they were entering upon. These terms have now been varied.” A social worker who is brought into close touch with unemployment and its effects said that slie could see no benefits coming under the present sustenance clauses. There was nothing in them that would lighten the load of the organisations which were now working to alleviate some of the distress caused through men being out of work.