AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Evening Star, Issue 22351, 29 May 1936, Page 1

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

CHARITABLE RELIEF CASE ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE BEING GIVEN When the report of the Benevolent Committee had been presented to the meeting of the Otago Hospital Board last night Mr M. Sitvferstone moved as an amendment in respect to a danse in the report that the amount of relief be increased in the particular case hy the amount of the weekly rent. Mr Silverstone said the case to which he referred had been before them for some considerable time. Previously the, board had paid the weekly rent as well as making an allowance to the family, but it had stopped the rent payment as from April 10. When that allowance was stopped it meant that tho income of the family, exclusive of the rent payment, was represented by a £1 a week allowance, and the total amount received by the family was now about 31s 7d a week. Two adults and three young children had to be maintained on that amount. He criticised the action of the board, in being hostile in this case. In view of the increased cost of living now taking place it was the duty of tho board to see that tho family had sufficient to maintain themselves. Mr Steel, who seconded the motion, said ho was of opinion that their general standard of relief should be increased. The standard was too low. Mr Steel was called to order for getting away from the particular business before the board. Dr W. Newlands, chairman of the Benevolent Committee, said this was a case which had given the board a tremendous lot of trouble for a long time. Tho family had been helped very liberally by tho Returned 'Soldiers’ Association and the Patriotic Association, but there had not previously been the same amount of co-operation between tho Patriotic Association and the board 1 as there now was. Dr Newlands said that it had been discovered after three mouths that the family was receiving £2 per week from the Patriotic Association. This fact had been unknown to the board, and the family was actually receiving double-banked relief. The board had, however, decided to take no action against the people concerned. He detailed what had happened to get the wife work and how she had subsequently left her employment. Mr Silverstone had made a lot of statements that one could not agree with, and Air Silverstone should have known that they were wrong. It was quite a mistake to say that the husband could not look after the children while his wife was at work. He thought that the beard would realise that he knew more about the case than Mr Silverstone possibly could l , and he would say, as chairman of the committee, that they, considered adequate help was being given in this unfortunate case. He saw that Mr Silverstone had justified the women in her decision to stop working if the board was going to reduce its aid accordingly. Dr Newlands referred to another aspect of the case and said that the family had been helped time and time again. If Mr Silverstone and Mr Steel desired to oppose a report of the Benevolent Committee they had chosen a very unfavourable opportunity to do so. The amendment was lost, only the mover and Mr Steel voting for it, and tho report of the committee was adopted.