CORRESPONDENCE.

Hutt News, Volume 3, Issue 21, 16 October 1930, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

BELIEVING UNEMPLOYMENT.

Sir,—ln viciw of the fact that the Unemployment Bill which has been, dis.----i cussed very thoroughly .in ■ Parliament; ■will shoHtly , roach the Statute Book, your leading article in; your paper, giving, the main clauses in the Act for the benefit of your numerous readers is very interesiti ng. There are,- how-: ever, a few points which I sho'tiild like deaith with by you in the next issue of your palper if you are aible to do so. You sltate that the sivstenanee allowance is limited to 13, weeks only being, if a man is married £1/1/- for the husband 17/6 for the wife and 4/ for each child"'which' I believe is up to sixteen years of age. ' Assuming Mr. Married Man put' of employment has claimed the sustenance allowance and has not secured a "situation"'within-the 13 Aveeks fixed by the Ac* in spite of the efforts of the Btiard of Management, what is his position, and has he any £i**fcher claim for relief bearin-g in mind the Prime Minister's statement in the HoiTsb that it was not right that anyone should starve. I see, according to Hansard, that the Minister of LaJbour stated tihat' untler an efficient system of organisation to be set up throughout the Dominion -fiie hoped thait suitable employment would be found for those seeking it and that sustenance allowance would only have to be paid as a last resort. Now the question arises, What is suitable employment? By the way, this question j arose in England and it was brought befor the Court for decision. A domestic out ot emiploynient was Toceiving ! sustenance allowance through the Irajb-' j our Exchange w&b offered her a job 4n,a "pttb" wMch she declined to accept, niain'taining that it was not suitable employment, and the authorities -refused to make any further payment- ' She took the ease to Court and the judge ruled that it was not suitable emiployment and she was entitled to the, sftistenanee allotwance until suitable eanplbyment was forthcoming.*—l am abc,

WAIWETU.

[The points raised above are pertinent, and though t3ie position is simplified by the fact that women, not being contributors to the fund established by the Act, are not eligible to receive, save as the wife or other dependent of a contributor? sustenance allowance. Provision is made that under special circumstances and upon the recommendation of the Board, the sustenance allowance may be continued to any unemployed eontriflcmtor to the fund after the expiry of the thirteen weeks of eontinulots un,employmeht. (See Section 20 (3) ). With, regard to I&e question of the suitiaibilitjr or 'otherwise of the form of employment, offered, with reference to which our correspondent quwtes an English legal decision, this is expressly provide^ for by Section 20 (4) of the Bill. It is herein stated that no i3ustenan'ce allowance is payable to a.nT man should his unemploymien't be caused by his rorfti(sal or failure to accept employment offered by or through the Board. Tsie Board will be the 3Ole judge as to the suitaibility in regard to ihe nature, conditions, rates of remuneration, and location, of the employment . offerea. It would appear that sweih "is not the case, under the English law under whiclh '' the dole " is payable. The powers, duties, and functions of the Board constituted under the New Zealand Act are very wide, comprehensive, and doubtless the which are being prepared will give more information- as to 1&e method of the administration of the new enactment.—Ed. H.N.]