SUSTENANCE PLAN.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 17, 20 January 1934, Page 11

SUSTENANCE PLAN.

M.P.'S CHALLENGE.

WORKERS OVER FIFTY.

REDUCTIONS IN EARNINGS,

A challenge to the Government and the Unemployment Board to justify the new sustenance policy was made this morning by Mr. R. Semple, Labour M.P. for Wellington, who is visiting Auckland.

"The Government and tlie board liave done some harsh things, but the new sustenance scheme reaches the limit," declared Mr. Semple. ''The inference is that men of 50 and 60 years of age are no longer capable of earning the relief work pittance. That is not only a libel, but a lie.- I have worked in industry for the major portion of my life, and my co-operative workers on the Orongorongo tunnel contract put up a world's record. Some of the most capable and trustworthy of those men were over 50 years of age. I am now prepared to select a team of men over 50 years of age, and undertake any difficult, laborious, skilful and even dangerous work, if the Government will select a group from the younger members of its ranks and from those of the Unemployment Board, and set theiu to the task of demonstrating that this latest move is not an insult to the men whom it will reduce to want for the balance of their lives. I dare them to accept this challenge. If they will, I will put on my dungarees at once, and I am well over 50 years of age." Citizens' Outburst.' Mr. Semple said the people of Wellington were not only indignant but shocked at the attitude of the board. At the public meeting of protest in the Town Hall on Wednesday there had been such an outburst as he had not previously seen from the citizens of Wellington. It was futile for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Employment to attempt to excuse the board for it* latest decision. As far as Wellington was concerned, the sustenance rates would mean substantial reductions to all classes of relief workers who were placed on them. In comparison with the ruling relief rates these "cuts" ranged from ,5/ to 16/0 a week. Under the scheme a man over 60 years whose wife was receiving the old age pension would have a combined income of 30/ a week, whereas a married man between 50 and 00 whose wife had no pension would, on sustenance, receive only 17/6 per week. Another example of the anomaly was that a married man with a wife and three children would receive 23/6 a week. "For a Canary." "The whole thing is abominable," declared Mr. Semple. "A man's family is to be sentenced to poverty because his wife is not old enough to receive the old age pension. A married man is expected to maintain his child on 2/ per week. That is hardly sufficient to feed a canary. The criminals in our gaols and the beasts in the zoo are safer and happier than these poor people will be under the proposals."