“NO PAY WITHOUT WORK”

Taranaki Daily News, 30 January 1931, Page 6

“NO PAY WITHOUT WORK”

MR. FORBES’ DETERMINATION EMPHATICALLY AGAINST “DOLE.” I ANSWER GIVEN A DEPUTATION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. “If anyone has an idea that he ia goincr to get - easy money under this Act lie will soon find his mistake,” declared the Prime Minister in an emphatic reply to a deputation organised by the Trades and Labour Council and the Labour Party which waited upon him to-day with a demand that sustenance should be paid if the Government oi’ the Unemployment Board could not find work. “They will have to do work for it; that is better for them and better for the country,” Mr. Forbes added. The Prime Minister made it clear that he would not stand for sustenance payment without work being done. He said the letter and spirit of the Unemployment Act was never that these payments should be made in the form of a dole, and he said he would not stand for this being done. The Unemployment Board, was engaged upon finding employment, but until it went to him with a confession that it vyas unable to carry out this part of its functions he would not say what w’ould be done regarding payments to the unemployed. If the-, board fopnd it could not find work the Government would find a system whereby work would be found. Speaking before the Prime Minister’s reply Mr. t R. Semple, M.P., said the National Labour Party and the Trades and Labour Council, which had originated the deputation, were prepared to cooperate with the Government in solving the problem. ' They were not in favour of sustenance being paid to men who refused work. Where work was offered at standard rates the unemployed should take it. The Government should make a vigorous effort to find work for men physically fit, but it would, be unreasonable and uncharitable t allow these men to starve if no work could be found. In that case those who were unable to get work should receive something upon which to live. Mr.- Walter Nash, M.P., said the relief of unemployment 1 cost the/Government about £l,400;000' last year; but the Unemployment Board would have only about £1,200,000 this year to meet a much worse position. It Was not fair that the board should have been burdened with fqll responsibility for the unemployment situation from the moment it first met bn November 25. The Labour movement both industrially and politically would hbjp toward a solution, bUt if they had to wait for some weeks or.months .before work was found for the i 6,000 out of work at present something would have to be done for them in the meantime. , Mr. T. Brindle, a member of the executive of the Trades and Labour Council, said many men out of work had found it hard to pay the first instalment of their levy and everyone was under the impression that sustenance payments would be made if work could not be found. Mr. Forbes’ statement to the contrary had caused much consternation. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Coates, had, moved an amendment in the House tjjat no kustenande should be paid without work being done, but this had, been defeated, showing that a majority of the members dni not agree with the Minister of Labour. It did not mean that; it meant that the Government- did not ■want it in the Bill. ’ “To put ;it as *lightly as I can, it seems we have been let down as far as sustenance is concerned,” added Mr. Brindle, “and it is tantamount to getting money under false pretences.” Mr. A. Parlane, secretary of. the Drivers’ Union, afeo urged' that, sustenance should be paid if work could not be found. ' '■