CAMPS FOR PUBLIC WORKS

Taranaki Daily News, 29 May 1933, Page 6

CAMPS FOR PUBLIC WORKS

EXPLANATION OF SYSTEM MEN PAID TEN SHILLINGS A DAY. ONLY ONE CHANGE IN METHODS. UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD POLICY. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, May 27. Approached by a pressman with regard to Public Works camps Mr. J. S. Jessep, deputy-chairman of the Unemployment Board, said that the only change in circumstances was that the rate of pay was now based on 10s a day. A close investigation recently made showed that for the period from July last to March 31 an average of £3 a week was fairly well maintained, being exceeded in some cases. The work offered at 10s a day in Public Works Department camps was not relief work. It was normal employment at the ruling rates of pay* The Unemployment Board’s funds were subscribed from the pockets of the citizens, thousands of whom were themselves little better off than relief workers. The duty of the board was to care to the best of its ability for the margin of surplus labour that remained when all the normal employment offering was filled.

The board had no legal responsibility to the men who refused such normal employment. The Public Works Department camps, where 10s a day was paid, came under this heading. The board had therefore to hold that if any ablebodied man declined without adequate reason work that was offering he himself absolved the board from further responsibility towards him. The condition of unemployment became voluntary, and the board could deal only with involuntary unemployment. Discussing, camps maintained by the IJnemployment Relief Board Mr. Jessep said that the remuneration was necessarily lower. As the work could not be brought to the city relief worker, there was no alternative but to take him to the work. There was nothing unusual in a man absenting himself from home for periods when it was essential to provide for his wife and family.

MORE CASH GRANTS ASKED

DEPUTATION AT CHRISTCHURCH. REPLY MADE BY MINISTER. Christchurch, May 21. A deputation representing relief workers waited on the Hon. Adam Hamilton, Minister of Employment, this morning and asked for more grants for sustenance in money, declaring that poverty was widespread and that many wives and children were suffering from malnutrition. It also protested against married men going to camps. Mr. Hamilton replied that the Unemployment Board had a slightly better credit balance than at this time last year, but the number of unemployed was bounding up. The last return showed an increase of 2000. He did not know why the unemployed wanted to be paid in money rather than in kind. He knew no centre getting a better allocation than Christchurch, which was receiving a fair share. If the registrations became top. high the board might have to cut into its reserves. A voice: “What are the reserves?” Mr. Hamilton: “One week’s allocation —about £80,000.” He added that no city was doing better than Christchurch in the matter of additional help. He did not understand the objections to going to camps. A voice: “Do you intend to conscript men into camps?” The Minister: “We say that if a man refuses a standard job it is his own responsibility.” A voice: “We won’t starve in a land of plenty.” The Minister: “Threats like that wont get you anywhere.” He added that he could not give an assurance that the 10 per cent, cut in work would be restored. Repulying to- a local bodies deputation asking for restoration of the 10 per cent, cut on relief workers’ time, Mr. Hamilton said that if a bigger allocation were made it would mean a bigger burden on the individual taxpayer. The board would like to give more but the fund could not stand restoration of the ten per cent. cut. . . Mr. Hamilton assured the deputation that the amount of voluntary help given at Christchurch did not affect the size of the allocation.