WORK OR SUSTENANCE ?

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 9, 10 July 1931, Page 8

WORK OR SUSTENANCE ?

LABOUR'S DEMAND

MR. FORBES TAKES FIRM STAND

The principle that where it is not possible to provide work for the unemployed sustenance should bo paid was urged by'the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. 11. E. Holland) in a motion in the House of Representatives this morning. ■Mr. Holland said that the original Act provided for tho payment of sustenance, but it had never operated. It was far preferable for work to be provided than for sustenance to be paid, but when the stage was reached when there was a failure to provide work, there could not be any logical reason for withholding sustenance. The Leader of the Opposition (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates): "What do you mean exactly by sustenance?" Mr. Holland: "We laid down last year ai minimum on which all members were agreed." . . 'Mr. Coates: "Oh, no." "I will exempt the right honourable gentleman," said the speaker. "The broader-minded members of the House were agreed upon' a guinea a week for a contributor if he is single, 17s 6d for the wife in the ease of the married man, and 4s for each child. That was the minimum' to which, Parliament agreed any family .should be asked to exist. Section 20 was-put into the Act with the express promise that if work was not found that would be the basis of sustenance payments." Tho Prime Minister (the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes) said that he was glad the Leader of the Labour Party had moved the motion, because it would dispose of the charge made against him that he was not prepared to find money for payment without work. When he left New Zealand for ,the Imperial Conference, Parliament was discussing the problem of finding work, and the sustenance clauses had been, introduced into the original Act because they were part of the recommendations made by the Committee set up to investigate the unemployment problem. They had no experience in dealing with legislation of this nature. The .House had discussed the Bill from the basis of work, and they had never considered that a condition of affairs would arise in which people would link up and' demand sustenance payments. The board itself had thought that because sustenance clauses had been included in the Bill it should be paid, and had intended to make payments, but it had been.told that Parliament desired , that work should be foundj and had set about to, find work. . When the .condition of affairs outlined ?by the Leader of the 'Labour , Party . came about,: then the House "could pass .special legislation to pay sustenance with special safeguards.' ''A CLUMSY WRICKJLJE.i' 'Mr. W. B. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said Mr. Forbes had given nor answer to Mr. Holland. The Government was making a clumsy wriggle. There were men who had paid their levy and had never yet received a job.' It was plain that something should be done : when work was not --found. iMr. M.J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) said if the House decided-to-day that it did not want sustenance it ■would be reversing the opinion: it expressed last year. (Sustenance was being provided at present, for where people1 could not get work they^had to befed and clothed. . Mr. P. IVaser (Labour, Wellington Central) said the Prime 'Minister last year had expressed the saine.;sentiments as^haa been expressed by Mr. Savage. •Mr. Forbes said .there could be no objection to sustenance if work could not be found. .' .' :...' ..„,..": .•Mr..Parry asked the Pnme Minister if he was going to i allow' anybody to starve.- ' ■.' ' ''■' •. '~••" - ■' • Mr. Torbesj, VNo.' ' : . . Mr. Parryi "How will you get over ■iti""]"y "'-:■"''■■"' ' vV' ■■■■••• •■■;.' ■':':. ■■ Mir. Forbes: "Through the- hospital and.charitable aid boards." Mr. Fraser^sa'id the Prime Minister would surely not say that it was in-; tended last year that the hospital boards should do the job. Mr. Fraser quoted the speeches of Ministers during flic debate on the original Bill, showing that they had supported' the payment of sustenance in the event of no work being found. ,i In. many peases neither work or sustenance was provided. Mr. J., T. Hogan ; (Independent, Rangitilcei) said it. seemed that the HduleSvas agreeable to sustenance whcii the Act was passed,,but it was impossiblo without taxation to do what they had set out to do/ The board should allow, sustenance in necessitous cases, especially where physical disability existed. . ■ . .^ vMr.-3P. Langstone (Labour, Waiinarino) said that according to the original Act. one of the three 'main duties of the board was to pay sustenance in the event of no work,being found., How could they expect the people to respect the law'if the Government did not respect it? . Mr. A." M. Samuel, (Reform, Thames) said he • thought everyone agreed with the principle of no work no pay, but he asked the Government what was going to happen to the men who could not get work. The amendment should bring home.to the Government the necessity for a definite policy. In the interests of .humanity,we must assume the responsibility for ,providing, for those in distress. The . Government must realise their responsibility to find work, arid if they had not a policy which enabled them to do that then they must provide food and shelter.