UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 August 1932, Page 10

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

BANK’S £4OOO GIFT.

[per press association.]

WELLINGTON, August 14

The Directors of the Bank of New Zealand have allocated the sum of £4OOO for the relief of women an) children in distress in the four chief centres in the Dominion. The amount is to be disbursed through channels or organisations which the Bank is satisfied are dealing with this particular phase of relief work. With a view to assisting the Bank in making its decision regarding the distribution ■•): the money, the organisations engaged in this class of relief work are invited to communicate with the Bank Manager in one of the four centres giving particulars of their activities .

LABOUR M.P’S CRITICISM.

WELLINGTON, August 13

Widespread comment has been cans-, ed by figures appearing in the quarterly accounts setting out the position of the Unemployment Fund. Over £lOO,OOO less has been paid out for tho months of April, May and June of this year than was paid out in tho same months of 1931, despite the fact that contributions are considerably heavier this year.

“These figures are so startling as to be incredible and call for Ministerial, explanation,” said Mr. C. H. Chapman, Labour M.P. for Wellington North, who has pointedly 7 called attention to them. “It is rather remarkable that during tho threepence in the pound taxation period last year the expenditure was practically double what it has been during the same period this year, with the wage tax increased to a shilling in the pound.” According to the “Gazette” of August 4, he says, the balance of the fund at. June 30 was £.987,277, or over ten times the balance at June 30, 1931. The figures showed that the Unemployment Fund cash balance at the latter date was £69,115. By the beginning of April last it had increased to £784,966. During three months of the current financial year the receipts shown were £109,004 from levy, £833,329 from emergency charge, and £2ll from fines, a total of £942,545, or a grand total of receipts of £1,127,511. Turning to the expenditure side of tho account, Mr. Chapman pointed out that the amount shown as paid out during April, May and Juno this year, £138,213, was much less than for the corresponding period of last year, £251,280. He further quoted the accounts as showing on the expenditure side a balance at the end of three months, as at June 30 last, cash £453,165, and imprests outstanding in the Dominion £534,112, a total of £987,277, as compared with £95,334 for the corresponding period last year. “The balance at’the end of June this year,” he said, “is in most striking contrast —over ten times as great.”

UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOCATIONS

[to the editor.] Sir, —In your local column on Thursday, August H, there appeared a paragraph to the effect that sufficient funds had been made available to give the I Greymouth unemployed their full (quota of days for the current week. I i take it for granted that the information was official; and being official, was, therefore, a correct statement of the position. That being so, Sir, I feel that the men registered at the- Greyinouth Labour Bureau, who live on the outskirts of the town and are employed by the Grey County Council have a justified complaint. For the past two weeks the time of the three-day men has been curtailed by half a day in each week, while the four-day men have been deprived of one day in each week. As the weekly allocations are disbursed, from one office, it seems rather queer that any discrimination should be made between town and .country. There is also a rumour prevalent. that town unemployed are receiving ono and a-half days’ extra work during their stand-down week. Not all of them are said to receive this concession,. but, although verification is hard to obtain, it seems to be established that some fortunate individuals are being specially favoured. Why should this be so? We are told in the Book of Books that: “Unto him that hath shall be given, etc.” Experience nas repeatedly demonstrated the great truth in that assertion. While we of the rural areas do not begrudge our urban - brethren any of the benefits they secure through I the kindly benefits of public effort, it ■As surely piling it on when Govorhmenl grants are issued to grant them a greater measure of relief work than we get. Coal, clothing, boots, rations and free boot repairs are all given the town dweller, but no such concessions are a.vailablo for the country cousin, whose liabilities are just as great. With the exception of rents our living expenses are just as heavy; and in many cases we had to forsake the amenities of town life because we could not afford to pay for them. Why, then, should we be penalised for endeavouring to help ourselves? Why should wo bo immorlated on the sacrificial altar of urban benefit? If every sec-i tion of the community affected was I being treated similarly in respect to curtailed relief work, we would have no complaint, but we must protest

when favour and preference are unduly shown to the section that already is receiving extra benefits. A readjustment of relief work conditions in country districts, involving the optional abolition of the stand-down week, has been made by the Unemployment Board. Does the Greymouth Labour Department intend to cut one day from each working week and so spread the monthly allocation of work over a four weekly period? If that is not tho intention, why give preferential treatment to town? I am, etc., “EQUALITY.” Greymouth, 15/8/32.