RELIEF SCALE CUT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18256, 27 November 1933, Page 4

RELIEF SCALE CUT

BOARD “TAPERING OFF” (.) RE AT R RESPONSIBILITY PROTEST NOT SUPPORTED By n majority of those present at to-day’s meeting of the Gisborne Harbor Board, it was decided to take no action in support of the recent protest to the Minister of Employment regarding the cut made in tlie allocation to the Gisborne district tor relief of unemployment distress. The view' prevailed that the function of the Harbor Board was to conduct the business of the port, and not to attempt to influence the policy of the Unemployment Board, which Mr. *. If. Williams described as having the greatest responsibility placed upon any group of men in the last generation. All present signified their sympathy with the situation of the unemployed, but a majority voted against a motion to join wijli other local bodies m protesting against the cut in the scale of relief. The matter was brought up by Mj. ,T, ,1, MacDonald, who stated that Mr. Charles Scott, who was unable to be present at the meeting had asked him to move, on his behalf, that the board support the protest made bv the Gisborne Borough Council and ii meeting of business men. against the recent reduction in the allocation of unemployment funds for this district, the reduction having placed many families in a state of dire distress. Mr. MacDonald did not discuss the motion at any length. CHAIRMAN’S POSITION Mr. E. C. A. Leggett seconded the proposal with the observation that the protest was fully justified, hut the chairman, Mr. J. Tombleson, intimated that lie would not support' idle motion in its present form. He was keenly sympathetic towards, the general unemployed, he said, and would support a protest against, the differentiation of relief rates in the cities and the smaller towns, hut lie could not support those men wdio had turned down work offered them by the Government. Mr. MacDonald pointed out that there was no reference in the motion to men who had turned down work :n camps. It was simply to protest against, the hardship caused by the cut in the relief allocation.

Support for the motion was forthcoming from Mr. M. T. Trafford, who pointed out that the men who refused work in the camps were dealt with bv the 1 regulations of the Unemployment Board, and were outside the application of the protest which the Harbor Board was asked to endorse. Men who had five or more children to support, he said, were in receipt of only £1 10s per week from the board, and if was impossible for them to pay rent, say. 15s per week, and live decently on the balance. He felt strongly on the point that the smaller centres were being penalised for the benefit of the city unemployed. ‘We Know why that tis done,” he added significantly. The chairman asked whether Mr. Trafford was sure that the reduction in the allocation was not because the men would not go to camp. Mr. Trafford stated in reply that the cut had nothing to do with 'the camps, nor had the protest-, ‘‘What happens to those who refuse to go to camp?” asked Mr. A. J. Nicol. “They get no work from the Unemployment Board,” stated a member. “Then they have to get sustenance—a payment without working,” commented Mr. Nicol. “We all know that it must he frightfully difficult for the unemployed to carry on.” said Mr. C. H. Williams, “but we do not know enough about the question to take the action proposed in this motion. We have had no explanation of the policy of the Uneiument Board in regard to the cuts in relief. We have heard one side only, •and knowing that there is a good deal of distress, we are liable to let our sympathies dominate us. We must not, forget, however, that the wage-earners who pay the tax for relief of unemployment arc also entitled to some sympathy. It must be a heavy burden for those in receipt of incomes to pay f> per cent of every £1 for the support of those who cannot get work. MOST RESPONSIBLE TASK “I consider that during the last, generation,” continued Mr Williams, “no men have lmd placed upon them a more difficult and responsible task than that shouldered by the Unemployment Board. The members ol the board have a most disagreeable and responsible job to do, especially in the tapering off of relief as the condition of the country warrants it. No one wants to see the country permanently saddled with the unemployment. problem, and it is the board’s duty to taper off the relief ns economic conditions dictate. If we merely pass resolutions without offering any constructive criticism, are we doing anything to help the position’? It is not our function, in my opinion, to run the Unemployment Board, and we should not do anything which tends to embarrass the board unless we can make constructive suggestions. W'e all have the deepest sympathy with the unemployed, but 1 do not think it is our function *o take part in an endeavor to run the Unemployment Board. ”

Mr. Ilf. T. Trafford naked what would become of the Unemployment, Board’s funds when unemployment is dealt with, and the Government is left holding second and third mortgages on hotels?

The chairman moved that, the board decline to criticise the policy of the Unemployment Board, but the amendment did not secure a seconder, Mr. Williams pointing out that the meeting should do nothing that would cripple the protest already made. On the motion standing in Mr MacDonald’s name being put to the meeting, it was lost by a margin of two votes.