SUSTENANCE RATES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21875, 10 August 1934, Page 13

SUSTENANCE RATES

INCREASE REQUESTED MINISTER ANALYSES EFFECT DOUBLING OF TAXATION [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION'] WELLINGTON, Thursday The second rending of his Unemployment Amendment Bill was moved in the House of representatives to-day by ilr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon). The bill proposes the abolition of the Unemployment Board and the payment of sustenance at the rates provided in the 1930 Act. Mr. Sullivan said he was afraid the Government and the Unemployment Board did not want to listen to suggestions sent forward by local bodies or unemployment committees. He was sure very few people desired a reduction in unemployment taxation if that meant greater hardship and privation to the unemployed. The new sustenance rates were 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.

Abolishing Relief Works He was satisfied the country had a great deal to gain if it abolished all relief works. It was clear that 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 rates provided in the 1930 Act. Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent— Wellington Suburbs) said he did not think there would be many who would want to go on sustenance if the rates were made equal to relief work rates. He thought the majority of men would prefer work. 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 between 33 and .50 per cent lower than they were. He was confident the quickest way of overcoming unemployment was by paying sustenance and not by subsidising relief works. A subsidy was paid on many works that would have been done in any case.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour — Christchurch East) said two-thirds of the work now being done at relief rates would be done at standard rates if relief works were abolished; Considering Representations

The Hon. J. A. Young, acting-Min-ister 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 wellmeaning people were not at all practicable. The board wanted to do the best it possibly could for the unemployed who were in an unfortunate position. Mr. Young added that last year there were 68,000 unemployed, on whom £4,130,000 were spent, an average of £1 3s 3d a week. If £2 a week were paid it would involve £7,106,000; £2 ss. nearly £8,000.000; £2 15s, £9,771,000'; £3, £10,659.000. To give £3 a week would mean that the unemployment tax would have to be increased to 2s 7d in the pound. To give effect to Mr. Sullivan's proposals would mean that the tax would have to be more than doubled.

Mr. H. Atmore (Independent—Nelson) compared the rates of sustenance paid in Edinburgh and Glasgow with those in New Zealand. He said £1 16s was the maximum in New Zealand, against £2 6s in Edinburgh and £2 13s in Glasgow. The debate was interrupted by the rising of the House.

DOMINION'S DEFENCE PROTECTION OF COASTS HOUSE DISCUSSES REPORT [BY TELKGKAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON. Thursday The annual report of the Defence Department was discussed in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour —Napier) criticised the purchase of trench mortars by the department, as they would be of 110 use in the defence of New Zealand. Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour —Grey Lynn) said New Zealand should encourage the iron industry, as shells would be needed for the defence of the coasts. The best way to defend the country was to build up men, women and children and give them good food, clothing, physical drill and medical attention. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe. Minister of Defence, said the object of the department was to prepare a force to defend the country, not to prepare an overseas expeditionary force.

Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour —Roskill) protested against the increase in the defence vote until the men who returned from the last war were adequately provided for.

TWO AUCKLAND BILLS [BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON. Thursday The Auckland Provincial Water Board Bill (Mr H. G. I?. Mason) and the Auckland Transport Amendment Bill (Mr. R. G R. Mason) were introduced in the House of Representatives to-day and read a first time.