WORSE THAN BEFORE

Grey River Argus, 28 April 1932, Page 5

WORSE THAN BEFORE

UNEMPLOYMENT POLICY More Work for Less Pay (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.; WELLINGTON, April 27. The manner in which the now scale of relief payment operates was exposed by Mr H. E. Holland in the House to-day, when he showed that, in the majority of cases, the men and their families are worse off than before.

Mr Holland moved the adjournment, of the House for the purpose of discussing the whole question in the light of the statement just issued. Mr Holland said that it would leave the unemployed men in a worse position than hitherto, because they would be losing the assistance which they previously received from the Hospital Boards. The single men who previously worked six days per month, and received £2 14s, would now work eight days per month for £3. They would have an extra 6s for two days’ work. Their position would be worse, therefore, because they would lose the charitable aid. The married men without children, who worked nine days per month, for £5 12s 6d, under the old scheme, would now work ten days and receive £5, thus representing a decrease of 12s 6d per month, as well as

a loss of charitable aid. The married men with one child who had worked nine days per month for £5 12s 6d under the old scheme would now get 12 days’ work, and would receive £6, an increase of 7s 6d, for three davs’ extra work. Without the hospital assistance this family would be worse off than previously. The married men with two children who worked nine days per month for £5 12s 6d under the old scheme, had had their working days increased to fourteen per month, an increase of five days, and their payment had gone up to £7, an increase of £1 7s 6d. This was about the only case in which the men would practically hold their own, and so offset the stoppage of the Hospital assistance. The married men with three or more children who had worked 12 days under the old scheme for £7 10s, would now work 16 days and receive £B, an increase of four working days and of 10s in payment. This family would be worse off. The extra amount would not compensate for the loss of the hospital assistance. Mr Holland asked the Minister if the new rates were to operate whether work was provided or not. Everyone would agree that it. was better to have the men working and to be paid for what they did; but, in the event of no work being provided, it was a reasonable thing to ask that sustenance should be provided according to the scale laid down.

Referring to the women workers, Mr Holland said that provision should be made for the handling of the unemployment problem among the women upon a more comprehensive basis than at present. Local Committees were looked to by the Government and the Board to administer the scheme, but provision should be made for work for the women, or failing that, for sustenance.

Mr McCombs said that he approved the statement that provision would be made for the unemployed in accordance with local needs, and he hoped that policy would be followed. The Minister had led the country to believe that a new and an improved scale of wages was to be expected, but there was no improvement in this respect; and, actually, the unemployed would be worse off.

“There is not a single new thing about the scheme,” remarked Mr Parry. “The old scheme had merely been a change about to give it the appearance of novelty. Never before had he known the community to be so disgusted over a policy statement, and there was a general feeling of hopelessness that the Government was not going to do anything effective. There was no encouragement for the women to register as unemployed, for even if they did, there was no hope of receiving aid. “This is probably one of the most staggering statements ever made as far as the unemployed are concerned,” said Mr F. Langstone, who complained that a definite reduction in wages was being made. The men were to work longer and were to receive less. Mr D. G. Sullivan said that people were making heavy sacrifices to provide the Government with more money for relief, but the Minister’s statement was calculated merely to create even more dissatisfaction.

Mr H. T. Armstrong said that everyone expected that as the result of the passing of the Unemployment Amendment Bill, which trebled the taxation, something effective would be done for the relief of the workers. Yet things were going from bad to worse; but there was a to human endurance.

MR COATES’S CLAIM New Scheme Superior VERY FLIMSY PROOF. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter. - ) WELLINGTON, April 27. Replying to the unemployment debate, Mr Coates said that the new relief proposals were infinitely superior and much more generous than any previous contribution to unemployed under Scheme 5. There were many farmers to-day who would be much happier and contented were they working under the proposals instead of on their farms eking out a bare existence. Mr Jordan: And you are placing more men on farms! Mr Coates said that the placing of additional men on the land only ap- • bed to registered unemployed. They be placed on farms until they

were able to carry on. Men on farms milking a few cows would be in a better position than unemployed in the city. An unemployed man in the city would be a thousand times bettor off were ho in the country districts. He said the present proposals were more liberal than anything under Scheme 5. Mr Semple: What benefit will they be to the unemployed girls? Mr Coates said that women’s organisations had stated they were able to handle the situation. Organisations in various centres had been asked to form themselves into a working committee. Requests that they made in respect to relief for unemployed women would receive the attention ot the Unemployment Board. Provided that .a man’s family was looked after, he would be wise to go into the country, if induced to do so. There were thousands of applications for pieces of land. A great majority of the men at Aka Aka had expressed satisfaction at the camp there. It was intended to put in drying rooms where these camps had been established. The Government would take every reasonable step to see the unemployed were provided for. The money payments to the unemployed, he added, were ‘not a wage, but were a relief.