SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 35, 10 August 1934, Page 9

SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS

MR. SULLIVAN'S BILL

FINANCIAL ASPECT

If the payments to relief workers •were increased to £3 a week, with the aresent number of unemployed, it Would mean ihat llic wages tax would have to be increased to 2s 7d irt ihc £, while if the Sustenance proVisions of the Unemployment Amendment Bill introduced by Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) were put into effect, it would mean that the ■wages lax would have to he doubled. This statement was made in the House of Representatives last night by the Acting Minister of Employment (the Hon. J. A. Young) in the course of the second reading debate on the Bill. - Mr. Young said that in Mr. Sullivan' 9 assertion that there was a strong objection to any reduction in the wiycs tax whilo the unemployment position was as bad as at prosent, Mr. Sullivan had not the general feeling of the nmn in industry, for there was a genoral feeling, that the tax should be reduced if this was at all possible. Dealing with the complaint, tbat stig ROstions from local unemployment committees were not given serious consideration by the Unemployment Board, tho Minister said that the- board was tho proper authority to consider the representations., ■ Mr. F. Jones (Labour, Duuoain South): We. have dono that, and we hayo been knoekod back. "OHAFF FROM THE GRAIN." Tho Minister: That is all right. Wo have to sift the' chaff from the grain. While many suggestions confo in, a lot uf them are.not practicable at all. Mr. Sullivan; Do you say that of tho unemployment committees in the towns? Tho Minister: Not at all. They have made very. valuablo suggestions, and I can hardly, believo they have boon ignorod. He said that if he could exercise any influence with the board in the future he would sco that all representations ■were sympathetically considered. While the position of the board was difficult ho would say emphatically that tho board was sympathetic and the' Minister was sympathetic, and all were trying to do their best for thoso out of work. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames): Will you endeavour to get tho same pro rata allocations for the country towns as for the cities? The Minister: We will have to considor the revenuo. It is all a question of circumstances and money. Mr. Young said that ■ tho original legislation provided for sustenance to be paid for thirteen weeks, but Mr. Sullivan's Bill wanted that amount of .sustenance for fifty-two weeks in the yoar. For tho past financial year the average number of unemployed was 88,000, and tho amount of money available- for their benefit was £4,130,000. That gave an average of £1 3s 3d a tveok. If the sustenance payment 'vas made £2 a week, it would need £7,106,000 annually. Mr. Sullivan: You aro not making aiiy allowance for tho number of men who would bo absorbed through the local ?>odies not' getting any relief workers. . ;. Tho Minister did not reply to this, but said vhat if the- sustenance allowance was increased, on last year's number of unemployed, to £2 5s a week, it .would require almost £8,000,000. Another 5s \ a week would require '£8,883,000 per annum, £2 15s would ■require £9,971,000, and £3 would require £10,659,000. He was not arguing against increased payments to the unemployed, but he wanted to make the cost clear.,, . Mr. Sullivan said that he Jiad suggested that tho Bill should bo read a 'second time pro forma and referred to tho Labour Bills Committee so that it could be examined. He regretted that that course had not been followed. Theposition of the local bodies in regard to unemployment administration was •of the utmost importance. Thcro was a general complaint about tho attitude adopted by tho Unemployment Board to unemployment committees, and the committee proceedings would enable any complaint to bo investigated. Tho Government had rejected tho proposals, and ho was disappointed. It revealed a Hitler-like attitude. Did the meinbors of the Government fully appreciate tho utter destitution and misery of the relief workers and those on sustenance? He dopreoated the idea of reducing unemployment taxation until the .number of those unemployed had been reduced. Relief work had resultod in depriving persons of anything that was worth while having in life. So long as tho No. 5 scheme and other schemes were maintained tho country would be in the grip of unemployment. WORK PREFERRED. Mr. B. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) said that it was unreasonable to expect that if a man was taken off relief work and- put on sustenance, he could live on less. Many men on relief works would rather bo working than drawing tho dole. He admitted the difficulties tho Government had, but even if spending moni'y meant showing a way out in tho end, it would be worth while. He supported the Bill. Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) contendod that there was only one way of getting out of tho unemployment difficulty, and that was by paying sustenance; not by subsidising relief works. Tho debate was interrupted by the adjournment of tho House at 10.30 p.m.