UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOCATIONS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 54, Issue 89, 25 January 1934, Page 6

UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOCATIONS.

STATEMENT BY MR CONNOLLY.

Sir, —When your reporter interviewed me re Ashburton Relief Workers’ Union resolution, I stated certain facts and added that I knew that the meeting had acted hastily and would on investigation and reflection probably pass a very different resolution before long. However, I had left it to the members of the Union to act in this direction, and although several days have elapsed, I have not up to the present read ofYnything or in any way been informed by that organisation of any desirable action on their part with respect to myself, but on the contrary I find that a letter in the correspondence column of the “Guardian” of "Wednesday, 17th inst., over the signature of “H. A. Knight, President Relief Workers’ Union” contradicts the remarks I made in reply to your reporter.

I had hoped that the statement which was as correctly reported in your columns as it was in accord with fact when I gave it to your reporter, would make it unnecessary for me to say any more on the matter, but as I have been charged with making an untruthful statement, I feel that I must defend myself, because there cannot be any justification for me to make such a statement and most certainly had I done so I would not he worthy to represent the people of Mid-Canter-bury, or indeed any section of them. Mr Knight in the letter referred to as published on Thursday said: “We have in our possession a full set of Hansard, covering the last two sessions, aud not one word was uttered by Mr Connolly against the granting of the building subsidy, or. the use of relief labour by public bodies, or did he say one word in Parliament in favour of doing anything that would make the lot of the unemployed more endurable.” As Mr Knight states tliai he is in possession of a full set of Hansard, 1 would refer him to Hansard numbers 2 and 3 of last session, and in No. 2, page 318, lie will find I spoke on the “Address-in-Reply,” and continuing on in Hansard No. 3 lie will find that the expressions contained therein were in the best interests of tho relief workers. If Mr Knight will read on page 321 in the second column, commencing with the ninth line, he will find the following words reported as having been spoken by me: —

.“There is no doubt, of course, that the question of unemployment is a difficult one to deal with, hut I hope and trust that the matter will be very carefully considered. We know that a great' deal of cheap labour has been provided in many directions—for the farmers, the local bodies, and even the Public Works Department; and the question arises as to whether all this cheap labour and the subsidy for building schemes represent the best means of coping with our difficulties. I fear that the number of unemployed will not be greatly reduced while so many employers of labour have the l ight to draw on cheap labour. Let me .deal with the building subsidy, for example. It hurries work along. Of that there can be no doubt. But how many people who could well afford to builcl without this subsidy' are taking advantage of the scheme? Therein lies the trouble. People are taxed to make up the Unemployment Relief Fund, and the next they hear is the introduction of this building subsidy of which so many are taking advantage. Admittedly, the building trade, taking all activities from the felling of the tree to tho time the house is built, provides a great deal of employment. What is happening now that the subsidy is not available? People are saying that they will wait, and assuring themselves that if none of them go on with building, the Government in a short time will ao-ain subsidise works. I woultf like the Government to give this matter very careful consideration, and would suggest tnat if, on the position being looked into, it is found that the subsidy is doing more harm than good, the Government do away with it and make an announcement to the effect that there will be no more building subsidies. After all, as I have said, it is questionable whether the providing of this cheap labour for the farmei, local bodies, public works, and.so on, is not doing more harm than good. Personally, I think it is, and I certainly do not expect to see a reduction in tlie number of unemployed until we do away with tlie practice of providing this labour. There are too many taking advantage of it, and I would like to see it clone away with. I know that the Minister of Employment lias a most difficult task, and that local bodies and others have gone out o their way and almost beyond tlieir right to find work for the unemployed; but, all things considered, I think that the sooner the present methods of subsidised labour are stopped and local bodies and the Public Works Department pay a decent wage to the men they require the better.”

Again, if Mr Knight and those he claims to represent are not satisfied with the above, I. would refer them to Hansard No, 17 of the previous session, because lie stated that I said notlll “| on the subject of benefit during that session either. In that publication on March 7th, pages 1,096 and 1097, he will find additional reason to be pleased with my statements, if not with his own ‘ JEU, CONNOLLY.

Wellington, 22nd January, 1934