RELIEF WORKERS’ WIVES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 90, 14 March 1935, Page 2

RELIEF WORKERS’ WIVES.

MEET MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT COMPLAINTS VOICED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 13. Members of Parliament this morning were invited by a number of Labour members to meet . a deputation of ladies who desired to put before them the case of relief workers’ wives and children on the lines that were put before the Minister of Employment last week. As a Government Party Caucus was being held to consider the Rural Mortgagors Bill, the Labour members and the Independents were practically the only members present. Some two hundred women and a number of children were present. The chair was taken by Sir Charles Statham and the proceedings were perfectly orderly throughout. The speakers were given a good hearing. Sirs A. Henderson, the first speaker, said the women present were the wives of relief workers who had known what it was actually to want. In many cases they had known actual starvation. They had seen their husbands go to work in the morning without breakfast, and their children crying for bread. She appealed to members when- they j went hack to the floor of the House to , demand that the abject poverty that existed be done away with. Women had endeavoured to secure an interview with the Prime Minister and the Minister "of Finance, but they had been denied that. She proceeded to outline the cases given the Minister of Employment last week. In 1930, she added, the Government had said a man with a wife and one child could not live on less than 420 6d a week, yet to-day they were expected to live on half that amount. The Unemployment Board had a reserve of £1,500,000 (cries of “Shame”), while women and children were going hungry. The women demanded that their husbands should be paid award wages. If work was not available they should receive an amount in sustenance that would enable them to live decently and feed and clothe their children properly. Mrsi Bender-. son also contended that a relief work- i er’s wife ehould he allowed to earn , money to supplement her husband s earnings. She said the wife of a man who was in permanent work was allowed to have permanent work also. Why should a relief worker’s wife not ■ be allowed to do the Members should demand that the Government shoulder its responsibilities and shoulder them fully. Mrs E. Cook said the women were present representing women from all over New Zealand. She made an appeal for better treatment for boys and girls between the ages of 15 and 20 who were unable to supplement the family income yet had to he kept. She said 'mothers saw their boys going downhill, adopting slovenly ways, and getting into had company as they had nothing to occupy their time. She said that if members did not know that such conditions existed they should go to the places where they could see them for themselves. Mrs O. Vaughan also spoke of the existing conditions. She said that not so long ago Mr Coates had said there were no people starving in New Zealand. That, she said, was untrue. The Government and the Unemployment Board were depriving women and children of their proper food, and it was the duty of members of Parliament to see that the rising generation received plenty of food and clothing. Winter was coming on and it was going to be a hard, bitter winter for many of them. There was no bright side to the life of the relief workers’ wives; it was just one continual miserable existence from day to day. Mothers had reached the stage when they would no longer sit hack and see then- children going unclothed and hungry ; they had come to demand that at least their husbands were given work, not charity. They wanted work, but they wanted it at award rates Mr M. J Savage moved ‘a vote of thanks to the speakers and regretted that the members of the Government were not present, hut they were attending an important Caucus. It was a pity the deputation was speaking only to their friends, but there was no harm in doing that. The motion was seconded by Mr H Atm, ore, urged that the three speakers of that' morning should he allowed to state their case to the country by broadcasting. The motion was carried and the de. putation withdrew. ’