SUSTENANCE SCHEME

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21717, 5 February 1934, Page 12

SUSTENANCE SCHEME

Sir, —A sub-leader in Tuesday'f Herald under the above heading" J stated: "The only reliable test of the Unemployment Board's sustenance scheme is that of .individual experience." Being 53 years of age and unfit fcr the common type of relief work available, and being unable to secure work at my trade, I was forced to apply for sustenance, through no fault of my own. I registered in July, 1932, and ivas on sustenance until November, 1932. Sustenance was reduced to 12s 6d per week somewhere about August or October in that year. I applied for work in a camp, as I could not keep myself and wife on that amount. After being in camp I was given Christmas holidays. During my holidays I secured wcrk at my tradp. but after doing eight months was again unemplo3 r ed and had to re-rfegister again. Since about September 11 last I have had only five weeks work at my trade. I wa3 forced to re-register again, as there was no light work available. I was told I was eligible for sustenance from January 26, 1934, and to call on that date for sustenance pay. I called as requested, only to be told there was nothing for me until the following Wednesday. On going/down on January 31 I was given sustenance at 1 the rate of 12s 6d per week to keep . myself and wife on. As far as my personal individual experience goes, I am worse off than in 1932. In conclusion, I would like to ask why are such statements published regarding married men getting 17s 6d per week r who are ever 50 years of age, when the sustenance is only 12s 6d? Oka, Pro Nobis.. ["Obviously this man is not on sustenance, but on half-pay," said Mr. Wv Slaughter, officer in charge of unemployment in the Auckland district, when this letter was submitted to'him. "He ; would be placed on half-pay because he -; could not do the work we had to offer. One of the conditions governing the payment of full sustenance is that the applicant must have performed 26 weeks' work at relief rates of pay from the time he first registered. letter ' shows that he did not- so-qualify, and not being eligible for sustenance has been placed on half-pav. There is work available in the country districts on'• light duty should he care to accept it and he is apparently certified as fit by the medical officers."]