TOWN AND COUNTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 146, 18 December 1933, Page 15

TOWN AND COUNTRY

RELIEF PAYMENTS

DIFFERENCES IN RATES

OBJECTION PiAISED

Strong objections "to the policy of tho Unemployment Board in fixing lower allocations for relief work in country centres than were granted in the town were expressed in the House of Representatives on Saturday during the debate on the Unemployment Fund Estimates. The defence of tho Minister of Employment (the Hon. A. Hamilton) was that ttiere wero more opportunities for relief .workers in the country to obtaiii benefits from tho various supplementary schemes. City workers were principally confined to the' No. 5 scheme. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames) said that he wished to'protest most strongly against the discrimination between town and country relief workers. Tho country workers had_ a stand-down week, and they also received lower rates of pay. If the Minister; stated that the country1 worker was a different class of citizen from the man; in town, the country worker would know how to conduct himself in order to obtain a higher rate of pay. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said that the relief workers at, Johnsonville wero subject to a stand-down week and received a lower rate of pay than the men in Wellington, yet the cost of living was just as high in the small-towns as it was in the city. Mr. Samuel: It is higher in many eases. ■'.'■ -'' '-. '.■ Mr. Armstrong said that before Parliament rose finance should be provided io raise the relief work pay of the country worker to at least tha level of tho man in the town. The latter leceived a miserable payment, but-the country man's plight was even worse. Considerable sums of money were being paid out of the Unemployment Fund for work done by other Departments, and large amounts were being granted to the Public Works Department. If those .practices continued there would, be nothing &;t&ey Unemployment' Fund - to meet caser of; hardship, 't^«jubT:l)o-__sn, t;die.,'''c.. Nf. Ti.' Semple "(Labour, Wellington East) supported'the protest against the discrimination between town and country. "If the city worker only just subsisted," said Mr.' Semple, "then the country worker just doesn't die»" The men .who laid down the rates of pay should be sentenced to live on them for at least three months. He had figures to show that the cost of living in some, of the small towns was higher than in the ,city.;-. Mr. E. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South)'said that the of Unemployment was. also Secretary of the Labour Department, but he was paid outrof- the'Unißnrployment; Fund. It was unfair thAt the fund should have to bear the cost of salaries of Labour DepartMent, officers, especially when allocations were being reduced. This year. £43,271 wjis being voted for officers on' loan from other Departments, against. £15,643 spent last year. The Estimates included'£2lso for board members' fees, salaries,. and expenses, and he asked whether that was all:tbe board members received; Mr. McKeen said that there was a lack -of coordination between the Unemployment Board and the Public Works Department for which relief workers had suffered.' . ' Mr.;*D. W. Coleman (Labour, Gisborne) protested against putting inexperienced men on piecework, stating that it was impossible for them to earn sufficient money to keep themselves and their families. He also asked the Minister to take steps ,to prevent the Public Works Department doing its work with Unemployment Board funds, "A TALLAOY." In the opinion of Mr. W. H. Field (Government,- Otaki) there should bo the same allocations for relief throughout the -whole Dominion. The theory that there was more seasonal work available in the country towns and that rents were cheaper there was a fallacy. '.In Johnsenville, where the country allocation was granted, there Was' not a day's seasonal work for anyone. Residents there had to pay the same rents as. in-Wellington, .and. the cost of provisions was higher than in the city. Another difficulty in small centres, such as Johnsonville, was that the small population of these places could not arrange the same amount Of unofficial relief, as was available, in tho cities.' Otaki "was another similar example. Th?. people were very ,pooi*,and were overtaxed arid had about 200 un-

employed among them. Many of them wero hard put to know how to live. Mr. Fiold also referred to a scheme which enabled farmers on small properties who were unable to make their farms pay to secure a weekly subsidy for work dove by themselves on their farms. He urged that this should be carefully investigated, as it would be found that there were some people taking advantage of it and not doing anything to their places at all. ORGANISATION CRITICISED. In tho opinion of Mr. W. J. Poison (Government, Stratford) tho Minister of Employment did not have sufficient organisation, the scope for which was overdue for. enlargement. Special aspects of a general problem required treatment by specially-appointed groups associated with the central organisation. The Minister said although there was a board there was no Department of Unemployment spread throughout tho country. Ho did not have the same standing as Minister of Employment as he did as Minister of Labour. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): Wo don't want to rob you of titles! UNWISE MOyE. Tho Minister said it had been considered unwise to establish a special department, as the problem was looked upon, as being temporary. Accordingly existing organisation was utilised and advantage was.taken of the services provided -.. by : tho Post • Office, : the Labour Department, the Public Works Department, and the local- bodies as organising factors for .unemployment, Mr. A. S. Richards. (Labour, Boskill):. They are ail,in a muddle! The Minister said the board never saw; any of the finance; it was collected by the Taxation Department and the Post Office and-held by the Treasury. '{We never, see the money," the Minister added. ■ ;..- ; Mr. Fraser: .In that respect you are like ; the .unemployed. •; ~. - .-■ . The;'.Minister'.said it .surely was' not suggested that,the country allocations should be brought -up io the level of the city, allocations. . Mr. Coleman: I do. The Minister,said, the policy had not tended to attractmen.to the city. The country people obtained better use from the supplementary relief schemes than the city dwellers. The job of the board was Ito distribute the funds as .equitably as possible. There was no desire to withhold relief from, anyone entitled ito it, but with .the.funds available no : more could be"dohe. than at present. : Giving more money, would not rieces- ; sarily • solve th 6 problem. ' . ! Mr_' I(_r7'E. Pai'i'y (Labour, Auckland Central): It would help people to get food, though. . .'*■"■ Replying to' Mr. P. Jones (Labour, Dunedin South) the .Minister said quite a number of relief workers, were in the employ of the board.' He assured the House that he had no' desire that anything adverse should happen at Christ- - mas time. .The liberal use of longdistance telephoning in' dealiiig with local complaints was wiso and justifiable in every way. .......... Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour,. Mariukau): Could you work-out a better scheme if you were relieved of other duties? ~ '.' The Minister: I might |£ I were a Mussolini. Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn): You mean a "macaroni"; that's the nearest, you will ever be to a Mussolini! A protest ■ against ' the number! of people on sustenance in Wellington was entered by Mr. iFraser, who said those individuals were. condemned to starvation. He supported the representations made on behalf of the Johnsonville unemployed.,