SUSTENANCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 August 1934, Page 7

SUSTENANCE

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE MR SULLIVAN’S BILL (By Telegraph) (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 10th August. If the payments to relief workers were increased to £3 a week, with the present number of unemployed, it would mean that the wages tax would have to be increased at 2s 7d in the £, while if the sustenance provisions of the Unemployment Amendment Bill introduced by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) were put into effect, it would mean that the wages tax would have to be doubled. This statement was made in the House of Representatives last night by the ActingMinister of Employment (the Hon. J. A. Young) in the course of the second reading debate on the Bill. Mr Young said that in Mr Sullivan’s assertion that there was a strong objection to any reduction in the wagetax while the unemployment position was as bad as at present, Mr Sullivan iiad not the general feeling of the men in industry, for there was a general feeling that, the tax should be reduced if this was at all possible. Dealing with the complaint that suggestions from local unemployment committees were not given serious consideration by the Unemployment Board, the Minister said that the board was the proper authority to consider the representations. Mr F. Jones (Labour, Dunedin South) : “We have done that, and we have been knocked back.” “CHAFF FROM THE GRAIN” Tlie Minister; “That is all right. We have to sift the chaff from the grain. While many suggestions come in, a lot of them are not practicable at all.” Mr Sullivan; “Do you say that of the unemployment committees in the towns?” The Minister: “Not at all. They have made very valuable suggestions, and I can hardly believe they have been ignored.” He said that if he could exercise any influence with the board in the future he would see that all representations were sympathetically considered. • While the position of the board was difficult he would say emphatically that the board was sympathetic and the Minister was sympathetic, and all were trying to do their best for those out of work. Mr A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames): “Will you endeavour to get the same .pro rata allocations for the country towns as for the cities;?'’ The Minister: “We will have to consider the revenue. It is question of circumstances and money.” Mr Young said that the original legislation provided for sustenance to be paid for thirteen weeks, but Mr Sullivan’s Bill wanted that amount to sustenance for fifty-two weeks in the year. For the past financial year the a vet age number of unemployed was 68,000, and the amount of money available tor their benefit was £4,130,000. That, gave an average of £1 3s 3d a week. If the sustenance payment was made £2 a week, it would need £7,106,000 annually. Mr Sullivan: “You are not making any allowance for the number of men who would be absorbed through the local bodies not gettincr any relief workers.”/ 'j- ):• ■ The Minister did not reply to this, but said that if the sustenance allowance was increased, on last year's number of unemployed, to £2 5s a week, it would require almost £8,000,(DO. Another 5s a week would require £8,883,000 per annum, and £3 would require £lO,659,000. He was not arguing against increased payments' to the unemployed, but he wanted to make the cost clear. Mr Sullivan said that he had suggested that the Bill should be read a second time T»'o forma, and referred to the Labour Bills Committee so that it could be examined. Ho regretted that that course had not been followed. The position of the local bodies in regard to unemployment administration , was of the utmost importance. There was a general complaint about the attitude adopted by the Unemployment Board to unemployment committees, and the committee proceedings would enable any complaint to be investigated. The Govenrment had rejected the proposals, and he was disappointed. It revealed a Hitler-like attitude. Did the members, of the Government fully appreciate the utter destitution and misery of the relief workers and those on sustenance? He deprecated the idea of reducing unemployment taxation until the number of those unemployed had been reduced. Relief work had resulted in depriving persons of anything that was worth while having in life. So long as tlie No. 5 scheme and . other schemes were maintained the country would be in the grip of unemployment.

WORK PREFERRED Mr R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) said that it was unreasonable to expect that if a man was taken off relief work and put on sustenance, he could live on less. Many men on relief works would rather be working than drawing the dole. He admitted the difficulties the Government had, but even if spending money meant showing a way out ir-. the end, It would be worth while. He supported the Bill. Mr W. Nash (Labour. Hutt), contended that there was only one way of getting out of the unemployment difficulty, and that was by paying sustenance- not by subsidising relief works. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment of the House at 10.30 p.m.