The Unemployment Board

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 217, 11 June 1935, Page 11

The Unemployment Board

Sir,—Although the Hon. S. G. Smith, Minister of Employment, has drawn attention, as published on page 13 in your issue of to-day, to an error in his own statement issued on Saturday last concerning Unemployment Board finances, I believe it advisable to draw attention to another error appearing in the statement of the Minister published on page 10 or your same issue, and to ask. if the Minister can possibly consider his statement, in any reasonable manner, tp cover or outline the policy of the board. You report: "The Minister stated that at the last meeting of the board it had been decided that in future men would be required to report once a week and cail once for pay instead of reporting twice, as in the past, and calling again for pay. From this it would appear that, from the date of or from a date following the last meeting of the board, held on a day late in May, or following the meeting of unemployed at Masterton on Tuesday night, men would be required to report once a week and call for pay once a week, instead of having to report twice a week and again call once for pay. This statement of the Minister, and probably his knowledge of the matter also, is seriously at fault, for as the several thousands of unfortunate married and single men who have been on sustenance in AXellingtojn since early in April know, it has not been necessarv to report twice and call again for pay each week, but only to report once and call for payment of the sustenance allowance (not pay) once a week. . I believe it would have been appreciated generally and appropriate if the Minister bad seen fit to mention all or more of the proposals for development instead of the doubtful proposal for development of the cinnabar dejjpsita in North Auckland. which appear to have been abandoned by Imperial Chemical Industries and many thousands of pounds’ worth of plain, thereon scrapped some years ago. Would the Minister suggest that these deposits, in view of this abandonment, could be worked profitably and provide permanent employment for 30 or 40 men? Could the Minister imagine it possible that such a proposal would hold out any hope to the several thousands of unemployed hungry men and their dependants in and around Wellington, none of whom would be likely to get employment of any kind on such work'.—l am, etc., Wellington, June. 5.