POSITION CLEARER

Northern Advocate, 20 December 1932, Page 6

POSITION CLEARER

UNEMPLOYED ALLOCATION WHANGAREI CONDITIONS. .MORE FUNDS OR ANTED. TnfonunHon concerning the much discussed question of unemployment allocations for Whangarei, ;nid a statenicnt that the scale of relief locally would be increased until January 14 at. least, were given at the meeting of the Whangarei Unemployment Committee last night.

The assertion that Whangarei unemployed have not been receiving as much relief as those of other centres was made by a deputation led by Air J. H. Brown, which waited upon the Borough Council at its last meeting. The council, at a committee meeting last Friday, discussed the position, but no reply was received from the Unemployment Board or Alinistcrs to their representations, nor to recent correspondence sent forward by tho local Unemployment Committee. The executive of the Chamber of Commerce thereupon recommended the calling of a public meeting by the chairmen of local bodies.

Speaking at the meeting last night the Mayor questioned whether, in the light of further information received by him, the calling of such a meeting would be necessary. Dargaville Status. The first point which Mr Jones desired to clear up was the allegation that Whaugarei was not getting a fair allocation in comparison with Dargaville. Mr Jones explained that in Dargaville there were six classes receiving relief. Those with ho children, those with children who are considered to be in better circumstances, and those requiring less to live on than others received a minimum of £1 a week. Then 5/- is allowed for each child until a maximum of £2 is reached. The County Clerk at Dargaville had supplied full information and had stated: “Taking your basis of 23/1) and 33/9, which is being paid to Classes A and B, I am convinced that the allocation for Dargavillc and Whangaroi has been made on exactly the same basis. We appear to be approximately £.lO better off, but some of the 60 men classed as B (no children) are actually Class C men, but have been shown as Class B on this statement for convenience, as they have, been paid only 20/- per week. They have been placed on the minimum because they are either in better circumstances or require less to live on than others. This would account for most of the £lO, as they would require to be allowed 33/9 instead of 23/9 when averaging numbers on our basis.' ’ Auckland Comparison. Mr. Jones also produced the following message from Mi- A. .1. Murdoch, M.P.: “Mr Slaughter says that Whangarei is not.qrenalised as against unemployed in Auckland. The quotas arearranged on the number out of work and allocations are arranged on that basis. For instance, a man with two children received formerly a maximum of £2 per week. This was subjected to a 10 per cent, cut, reducing it to 30/-.

“As the work in Auckland was not sufficient to go round on account of the numbers unemployed, the woi-k was rotated, so that the average received by one man is 27/- per week.”

Mr Jones said that the difference lay in that Auckland worked without a stand-down week.

Mr Hopper said that in Auckland a married man with no children or with

one child received 2a/- pur week, and then .!/• additional urns added for each child until the maximum of 40/- was readied. The Auckland allocation .was insufficient. to provide everyone with work every week, and the employment had to be rotated. Unemployed as a class were not entitled to receive rations from the board, but every case must be considered on its merits. Air Brown quoted the case of JO men on the Newton East School job who had worked continuously without stand-down weeks or rotation of work. Mr Jessep Explains. In further explanation the Mayor said that on Saturday, Air Jessep, deputy chairman of the Unemployment Board, had explained that delayed replies to Whangarei representations had boon caused by his absence from Wellington. Air Jessep promised that he would give the question his fullest consideration. He had agreed that payments of about £3O weekly to men at Ruakaka should bo distinct from the ordinary Whangarei allocation. In future the Ruakaka allocation would ho plus the Whangarei allocation, and he hoped that it would be removed altogether by the placing of the men concerned on public works. Air Jessep had authorised an allocation until January 14 which would result in AYhanga-, rei Class A men being raised from 23/9 to 27/6, and Class B from 33/9 to 37/C approximately. On the information which Air Jessep had given him Air Jones was not prepared to support the calling of a public meeting to ask for the same allocution as Auckland, unless the meeting also advocated increased taxation. Already the Unemployment Board was spending more than its revenue. If there was to be any increased allocation in metropolitan areas, then tho country districts would be entitled to benefit as well. Complex Interpretation. Air H. W. Crawford considered that it was the different interpretation of the ‘Act given by the 300 certifying officers which was causing most of the trouble. There should be uniformity throughout New Zealand. Air A. D. Jack agreed that this placed the finger on tho difficulty. It had been stated by the board recently that tho unemployed of Auckland wore receiving “comparatively fair treatment.” No comparisons should be possible —the board should have an overriding scheme for all the Dominion. Action Appreciated. Air J. 11. Brown thanked the chairman for lus fair statement of the position. He attributed the better conditions obtained to the direct representations to the Borough Council, which had awakened the people of Whangarei and resulted in a better tight being put up for local interests. The increased allocations were almost entirely duo to his efforts, he said. Mr Brown quoted Auckland cases where differentiation from tho Act had been made. It was in the method of collecting revenue alone that there was uniformity.

Uniformity Requisite. ■3l r Crawford then moved as follows “That the chairman of the Unemployment Board be notified that apparent differences in unemployment allocations are causing dissatisfaction among the unemployed and call for a definite interpretation of the policy of the board, so that officials administering unemployment funds will henceforth make all allocations uniformly throughout Mew Zealand.”

Thifc was seconded by Mr J. Donaldson, and supported by Mr J. A. Finlayson, who said that the Harbour Board and he had, always fought for the principle that an unemployed man in Whangaroi was entitled to the same relief as his follow anywhere else in the country.

The Mayor said the position offered many difficulties, as each question had to be considered on its merits.

After further discussion, Atr Crawford added to his motion that a subcommittee comprising tho chairman and Alessrs Jack, Hopper, Hemphill and A. J. Afagee be set up to draft reasons for attaching to the resolution. The motion was carried. No Public Meeting. The question of whether a public meeting should be called was then discussed. Air If. C. Hemphill could not see. what could be put before such a meeting. Air Atagce: “We seem to bo getting what we want without it.” The Alayor: “Until January 14 at any rate.” Air Finlayson: “If the bettor treatment is withdrawn from us, then we can proceed with the meeting.” [ On the motion of Air Donaldson, seconded by Air Crawford, it was decided not to call a public meeting. Functions of Committee. The chairman said he had gone thoroughly into the status of unemployment committees with Air Jessep, who said that, whereas the committees were originally formed to find work, the whole position had changed, and any • representations concerning unemployment in the district should bo forwarded to him by the local committee. These would carry much more weight than intervention by local bodies, of which the committee was formed.

Air Atagee said he was very pleased to have this assurance. The local Unemployed Association was very glad to use constitutional methods, and hoped to receive a “fair spin” through the committee in future. The statements made that night had shown forcibly that the stand taken by some of the unemployed had been fully justified. Never since he had registered had the unemployed of Whangarei received the maximum amount of work. In the method of revenue collection only was there uniformity throughout New Zealand in interpreting the Unemployment Act,

Mr Brown said the reason the relief workers had approached the borough Council was because the people of Whangarcl were accepting unfair treatment too easily. Mr Jcsscp, like other civil servants, did not like public discontent. Mr Finlayson; “I don’t think that we, as a committee, would have got the increased allocation. Jt has only been by public intervention that the aim has been achieved. I have often heard the chairman of this committee say that wo could not get better treatment.” Representation Medium. Mr Hemphill moved that in future all representations concerning unemployment in Whangarci should bo made through the Unemployment Committee. If outside bodies deemed it necessary to pass resolutions, such should corre before the committee for a decision. Unless this was done he would not be prepared to sit on the committee. . Mr Jones seconded the motion.

Mr Brown opposed the proposal, which lie assorted would result in tying the hands of the unemployed. If the deputation had not gone before the council the unemployed would not have got anywhere.

The chairman ruled that representations could still be made direct to local bodies, who, however, would have io submit their recommendations to the Bucmploymcnfc' Committee. Mr Magee supported the motion. He made it clear that the Unemployment Association had no knowledge of the deputation which had waited on the Borough Council. The unemployed were quite prepared to rely entirely on the committee, provided it did not become lax in its methods. If the committee was found not to be functioning properly, other procedure would be adopted.

The motion was carried with dissenting voices. New Allocations. The chairman moved that in future Whangarei allocations be made on the same basis as Dargaville. This would involve much more work for the Labour Department and local bodies ’ staff’s, but he thought would be much more equitable. Men with children would benefit at the expense of those who were replaced on the minimum. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr Hopper gave an assurance that the altered allocation would come into effect by January 14.