WORKLESS RELIEF

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12252, 6 April 1935, Page 2

WORKLESS RELIEF

WHAT ME COLEMAN TOLD PARLIAMENT. IN' SUPPORT OP EXTRA ALLOWANCE. VIEWS OF SOCIAL WORKERS . CITED. “NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID HUNGER.” (Special to the Times.”) WELLINGTON, April. 4.

During the debate in the House on unemployment, Mr Coleman (Gisborne), said that ho was tho tenth member to take part in the- debate nndl so far no Minister ov Government member had attempted to reply to the charges -made from the Opposition benches against the Government. Members on. the other side had been eloquent by.'their silence. It could uot bo said that their silence, was because of there being no ease to answer, bo cause the charges made were of a very serious; nature. They had not been refuted and call for -some- reply. Possibly Government' members ' l'carC’d that if they cli L f take pn'i’t in the-' debate'they wp-ukt l'eei bound bo condemn the Government they supported. They knew the treatment meted out for the last four or five years to the poorer classes. He supported the motion' moved by the Leader of the Opposition, not because' Mr Savage had moved it, but because the people of the country were not adequately housed and fed. There were -among the people,, however, many who had: taken a hand in the matter and had endeavoured! by various means to alleviate the distress, among their fellow citizens, and had provided food and cloth ing for them. But the unemployed', while recognising the kindness and generosity inspiring such efforts, did not want to he compelled to go to relief depots, or to accept charity and other people’s left-off clothing, nor be fed! from other people’s cupboards. Even as it was, these people who had helped their fellow citizens were themselves coming to the end of their tether and were no longer able to assist

Continuing', Mr Coleman said; “Let me quote the wages that are being paid itoua.-y in Wairon. Single men receive 10s a week in the ,town and! 7s Cd a week in, the; country including Nulialuv. ’Married mein; receive 18s per week in the town, and 15s in the country. Married'mc'h with one child received 1 22s in the town, and) 19s in the country, married men with two children ‘26s in the town and 23s in the country, with three children 30s in the town and 27s fin the country, with four children 32s in the town and 29s in the country, with five children 34s in the town and 31s in tho country, with, six children, 30s in tho town and 33sIn the country, with even children, 3Gs in the town and 35s in the country. Gisborne relief workers 'received a, very littlo more. Tho Maoris received' considerably less Mombeis had heard in this House the Maori placed at a very -high standard, equal with the pakcha, but when it came to. the ’Government giving him relief' work ho was considered infinitely inferior to the pakeha. The highest rate received by a Maori with seven children walsi 26s 6j per week. No rations were included with any of the rates he haff mentioned:. Low as these rates wore., when no work coukl be given, to the men*, they werc placed on sustenance and the rates were 3s 2d per week less than those he had quoted’. There was quite a., large amount of work beiny done by the Government in his district —necessi i'y work —at relief rates. Members heard fom time to time that the Government was greatly coueernodi r.bout the- 11110111" ployed, yet it was doing necessary constructioiu work at relief rates of pay. Were those rates sufficient to enable any man. to bring up his family anything like decen I ly ? Out of their pay they had to pay rent and clothe anq feed their families. Mr Coleman sai c ] that be was not condemning tho Unemployment Board nor even tho Minister in charge of the Department. The Board was simp ly carrying out the policy of the Government- and he felt sure it must be galling to the members of the Board to have to adminster such a policy as was forced upon them. The rates of pay of tlie men on relief works were causing grave discontent, not only amongst the relief workers themselves but among the social workers wh° wore feeling very much concerned at the treatment meted out by the Gov-

LIE THAT SHOULD BE HANGED. Th Rey D. M. Martin had recently said: — “The, very .first lie t (at ought to hanged! by tlie neck until it/ is dead;, is the lie that, there- is.no- hunger in ..New Zealand, Even living in the most economic way possible, which is to provide one’s -self of the facilities; provided by charity, it is not 'possible to avoid being hungry most, of tho time. God knows how they manage on 37s 6d for six, seven, or eight. I found it impossible to avoid being hungry on 10s a week for one.” Proceeding,, 'Mr Coleman said also Major Day of the Salvation Army had made a similar report. These gentlemen could not bo. regarder as men who wore endeavouring to make capital out of the sufferings ot tho people. They were not men who were seeking public positions, but were men who wore -spending their lives in endeavouring to- bring some relief into the hearts and homes ef the people. Members knew that, so far as Major Day was concerned—a Salvation Army officer —110 iwoulj bo absolutely ba'rred 'from taking part in anything that tended towards party politics—and he said : “it must ho obvious to anyone who thought about it that tho unemployed did not live, but just existed. It was almost impossible for him to avoid hunger on relief rates -of pay, and the only solution was an increase of 10s per week.” HARDSHIPS ON FAMILIES. Mr Coleman said, that he could mention other cases, but these two would be sufficient for the time being. Those remarks wore only typical of what other social workers in the "Dominion were saying today. The Government said .that relief was not pay; it was just something to help, just- something to make sure that the people had some thing in their homes. Yet members found that.if a man should happen to get a. casual day’s work a week, his relief rates were cut down, or, if he should be on sustenance and should happen to have a day’s work or half a Jay’s work a week his sustenance rate would be cut down. He wanted to ask: IVhat possible chance had these men of bringing up their families in decency? What chance had the child ren of a proper training? Many peo-

ple sold up their homes and had come to- this country, not so much with the hope of bettering themselves but wRh the. idea Of giving their children a better chanco in'life than they hadAnd wlia-t did they find? That the only work offering for. them was relief work and that the. only means of succour for their children, was from depots and charitable aid boards,-The system, that the Government working undor was unchristian anil could not ho defended by any. member of the 'Government. He wished to quote a letter he had received just before coming into-the House that evening—a letter from a man who -had a. wife and one child. He was" receiving 22s a week and he had* to‘ pay 12s Od for rent. No. one could expect a man with, a family to have a house at les s than 12k Gd. That left'him a balance of 9s'Cd ;and this was how it was expended: Flour 6d, sugar Gd, tea Is 7d, butter Is Id, soap 6d. His milklie ot free arid bread cost 2s 3d, That came to Gs sd, nnj leaves him a balance of 3s Id [with which to feed, clothe and bring up his child. In his note ho said that in the week when lie needs firewood; lie had to cut out some of the necessities he had just quoted. Tlie Government’s policy was causing dicontent, and was meeting with the approial of no one. Tlie business people were against it. Indeed, they wcr<* passing resolutions urging the Government to make more adequate provision for the people, and he did hope that the -Government would take heed of what had been said and do something to make the unemployed better than they were. Let the Government remember that these people were unemployed through no fault of their own. That being so, it was up to tlie Government to do what it could to improve matters. The very least that the G-oyerninont could do was to increase the wages of the workers by at least 10s a week, as outlined in the motion before the House.”