PRISON WAGES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIV, 28 October 1921, Page 8

PRISON WAGES

REMARKS BY CONTROLLERGENERAL \ ——- —- Writing of the system of P^'T 1 t to prisoners with necessitous tlie Controller-General of Pnsom. (* Matthews) slates: “At the tone writing (31st July) the Bystem as been in, operation for seven mouths only, hut its beneficial effects are already app«iont. Under former conditions the queers responsible for the admims ia mi of the Prisons Department were co - tinuallv faced with pitiable cases destitution and absolute want among the dependents of prisoners who were ai to be energetically and mtcll g j carrying on the work allotted to |i l( ; l , r1 ’ and were thus creating revenue foi the State. there was no means of affording the slightest (manual relief, although in recent years thp actual cash receipts of the Deparemjm ■ a revolt of the proper use of ds had grown from a few hundieds pounds to over £39,000 pc; annum. Under the new system authorised last a t a a measure of relief can‘be given to innocent sufferers from others crimes, may bo thought that the payments now being made are less than is wavran c by the value of the work performed by the individual prisoners, and that the dependent relatives arc not receiving their proper quota of earnings. It must be remembered, however, that m uus mattr New Zealand k making a somewhat bold departure from established practice, and care must be taken that in the initial stages the scheme docs not break down with its own weight. Even under the present limits, conservatism is and must be the watchword of the Department ii; ( administering the regulations. Unless full dependency of near relatives is conclusively established hv careful inquiry through the recognised channels, no prisoner is placed on the ‘wages list,’ although every man who works well agid conducts himself satisfactorily receives a small payment pel diem to establish a fund for his personal U3C on release. The total amount paid out to dependents of prisoners lor the first seven months of the calendar ycai 1921 was £2130. It will tints *bo seen that the cost per auum to the State, even of a. limited scheme of wages payment,’ is by no means inconsiderable; but, in view of the fact that the cash earnings of the Department foi lust financial year amounted to over £39,000, it will, I think, ho admitted that tho dependents of the prisoners who help to bring in such a substantial annual return are entitled to the consideration they are now receiving-