SUSTENANCE RATE

Northern Advocate, 10 August 1934, Page 8

SUSTENANCE RATE

AMENDMENT BILL

PROVISION DEBATED.

EFFECTS ANALYSED,

(Per Press Association. —Copyright.) WELLINGTON, This Day.

The second reading of his Unemployment Amendment Bill was moved In the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon).

The bill proposes the abolition of the Unemployment Board and the payment of sustenance at tlie rates provided in the 1030 Act,

Air Sullivan said he was afraid the Government and the Unemployment Board did not want to listen to suggestions sent forth by local bodies -or unemployment committees. He was sure very few people desired a reduction in the unemployment taxation, if that meant greater hardship and privation to the unemployed. The new sustenance rates wore better than the old rates, but they "still meant destitution to those who had to accept them. The only proper and humane thing to do when the Government or a local body was not providing adequate work and wages was to pay the men exactly the same in the way of sustenance as they would receive on relief work. Even that was not an adequate solution. Ho was satisfied the country had a great deal to gain if it abolished all relief works. It was clear many local bodies were not employing the number of men they would if No. 5 and other schemes were abolished. Many thousands of men would be employed at standard rates, and the unemployment total would be so reduced that the remainder would be able to be paid the sustenance rate provided in' the .1930 Act.

Mr W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) said he was certain if the principles embodied in Mr .Sullivan’s bill had been put into operation when the Prime Minister returned from England in 1932 the number of unemployed would have been bctAvccn 33 and 50 per cent, lower than it was now. He was confident the quickest way of overcoming unemployment was by paying sustenance and not by subsidising relief works. A subsidy was pa:l on many works that would'hnve been done in any case, Mr H. G, Armstrong (Labour, Christ church East) said two-thirds of the Avork noAv being done at relief rates would bo done at standard rates if relief work Avere abolished. Would Double The Tax.

The Hon, J. A. Young, Acting Minister of Employment, referring to a complaint that the bill had not been sent to a committee, said if the affected people made representations to the board they would receive every consideration. Many suggestions from avcllmcaning people Avere not at all practicable. The board wanted to do the best it possibly could for the unemployed, who Avere in an unfortunate position. Mr Young added that last year there Avere 68,000 ; tinemployed, on AA r hom £4,130,000 Avas spent, an a\ r erage of £.l 0/3 a. Aveok. If £2 per week Avere paid, it would involve £7,106,000; £2 5/Avould mean nearly £8,000,000; £2 15''would amount to £9,771,000; and £3 to £10,659,000. To give £3 a Aveck Avould mean that the unemployment tax Avould have to be increased to 2/7 in the £. To give effect to Mr Sullivan’s proposal would mean that the tax Avould haA T o to be more than doubled.

Mr H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) compared the rates of sustenance paid in Edinburgh and GlasgoAv Avith those in New Zealand. He said £1 15/- Avas the maximum in Noav Zealand, against £2 6/- in Edinburgh, and £2 13/- in GlasgOAA f . The debate Avas interrupted by • the rising of the House.