PARLIAMENT

Southland Times, Issue 22157, 27 October 1933, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

IMPREST SUPPLY UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CONDITIONS OF WORK LABOUR’S PROTEST (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 26. The voting of supply in the House of Representatives to-day provided an opportunity for further discussion on the unemployment question and Labour members availed themselves of it to the full. The debate proved uninteresting as the subject matter was very similar to many previous debates on the same subject, but that did not prevent the Opposition from making the matter a voting test, an amendment being moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr M. J. Savage early in the proceedings. Mr W. E. Parry referred to the unemployment problem and said the Government had failed to deal with the problem. He criticized the administration of unemployment and said that undue suffering was being imposed on people. When men went to the Labour Bureau the third degree was put on them. The state of affairs at the present time was little short of a scandal. How long did the Prime Minister think that the unemployed men and women of New Zealand were going to be satisfied with the left-off clothing of the rest of the community. How long were the people going to stand for slave camps which were little short of criminal incubators. Young men were marshalled and herded together in camps without supervision. Mr A. M. Stuart: Some of them would rather go to camps than work for the farmer. Labour members: No wonder.

There was more unemployment in New Zealand to-day than ever there was, said Mr Parry. Not only were the unemployed being forced to work for a mere pittance, but now the Government was trying to foist piecework on to them.

Mr Parry said that if the Government had the necessary determination it could improve the lot of the relief worker a couple of weeks. “If I was a relief worker to-day,” said Mr Parry, “I would be a source of considerable annoyance to the Government.’’

A Government member: You are that now. (Laughter). “I am not going to knuckle down to this sort of thing for another two years,” said Mr Parry. “I will probably have to do a bit of a term in gaol, but I won’t mind that. I didn't shirk it before and I hope I won’t shirk it again. I don’t like it, but I won’t shirk it. The Leader of the Opposition said it was impossible for relief workers to earn their salt on the rates at present paid. If the men refused to accept the rates they were debarred from receiving any relief work. He moved the following amendment: “This House records its regret that the Government has failed to deal effectively with the question of unemployment which is causing so much destitution and distress. It expresses disapproval of the present relief work system and strongly condemns the proposal to introduce piecework to jobs carried on under relief work schemes. It further expresses the opinion that the time has arrived for applying standard wages and conditions to all relief work.”

Mr Savage said that medical evidence showed that there was malnutrition amongst the children of the unemployed and when the Minister of Health said that the health of the people was better than ever, he was talking bunkum. Mrs E. R. McCombs referred to unemployed youths and said it was not the responsibility of private citizens to cope with the position. It was the duty of the Government and the Government should do its duty or resign. Mr H. T. Armstrong discussed the proposed piece work system and said that it was the worst piece of injustice that had been imposed on relief workers.

The debate was continued in a similar strain for the rest of the afternoon. Mr McDougall’s Protest. Mr D. McDougall said he had been surprised to hear Labour members say that on relief jobs men had to shift 20 yards per medium day to earn 3/6. “I venture to say that there’s not an hon. member in this House who could shift 20 yards per medium day for the price paid these men,” he said. A Labour member: What about the member for Rangitikei? Mr McDougall; No, the hon. member for Rangitikei couldn’t do it. I doubt if he could do it if it was snow. I am surprised that such a price could be offered any man in a civilized country.

Mr McDougall then told the House about an experience of his own on contract work. “The boss said when McDougall’s on by contract he takes strides of about a yard and a half, but when he’s on by the hour he can scarcely put one foot in front of the other.”

Mr McDougall then referred to the earnings of the Canterbury member of the Unemployment Board. “When the Government can pay £6 per week to a member of the Unemployment Board who is already being paid £8 per week by the Canterbury Progress League, a total of £l4 per week, surely it can pay a little more to the unemployed for shifting material,” he said. “This member of the Unemployment Board is also organizing for the Reform Party in the Canterbury district. Labour members: Oh, Oh! Mr McDougall: There’s no oh about it, it’s a fact. A Government member: Are you sure ?

Mr McDougall: I am sure of anything I say.

Mr McDougall then referred to the prices paid to the unemployed for fencing. “Fourpence a square chain for clearing the ground!” he exclaimed. “Why, there are members in this House who would not walk round a square chain of fern for fourpence. Not even my good solid eld friend from Scotland,” he added, turning toward Mr A. Stuart, the member for Rangitikei. Mr W. J. Polson: The member for Scotland.

In conclusion Mr McDougall expressed the hope that the Minister of Labour and the. Minister of Public Works would give the men more generous treatment. He finished on a biblical note. “If they do,” he said, “I will say to them ‘Well done my good and faithful servants. Your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more..’” Board Defended. Mr J. Hargest urged the Government to push on with the small farm scheme as a means of dealing with unemployment. There was suitable land for the scheme in Southland and many young men there wanted to settle on the land. He believed that if small committees composed of men who knew the conditions were appointed in each district a great deal could be done. Men settled on blocks of 40 or 5.0 acres would have a home and probably would be provided for in reasonable

comfort for the rest of their lives. He hoped the Government would rush this scheme harder than it had been doing. He said that statements made by members of the Opposition were much exaggerated and said the Minister and the Unemployment Board had done excellent work. The measures taken to deal with unemployment represented a great effort for a small country of this size. He had visited the Kapuka camp, arriving unannounced on the same day that a strike had occurred. He found the accommodation and the food very good. The men were earning 7/6 to 12/6 a week. It was certainly not a wage, but these men did recognize that something was being done for them and they were better there than looking for work. The strike had been inspired by malcontents who did not want to work themselves and did not want others to work either. Mr Hargest said that much had been done in his district on a contract basis. Two hundred and twenty men were engaged in straightening Duck Creek, very unpleasant work. Four months ago they had been put on contract work and had promptly struck, but all but 13 agreed to go back on a fortnight’s trial of the new system. They were still there earning 10/- to 11/- a day for five days a week and were as satisfied as men could be outside ordinary work. He had been struck by the marvellous effect the contract system had had on them and he felt they were a cut above the No. 5 Scheme workers.

The debate was proceeding when the Telegraph Office closed at 2 a.m.