UNEMPLOYED RELIEF.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16740, 23 May 1922, Page 5

UNEMPLOYED RELIEF.

GOVERNMENT’S ACTION CRITICISED.

The Government’s attitude towards unemployment was criticised at last evening’s meeting of tho Christchurch. City Council. The Minister of Public Works wrote stating that in addition to tho men employed by the Government on its ordinary construction works, special works had been put in hand in the South Island as relief works, which at present employed 326 men. It happened that in the Christchurch distriot there were only twenty-two men employed at present and these were on the Parnassus-\Yaiau ltoad. There had also been quite a considerable expenditure of Government money on various roadworks in tho North Canterbury counties. The Government had, in recent times, in order to relievo unemployment, expended considerable sums on the Evans Pass and Sumner-Lyttelton Road. The letter also stated that the Labour Department’s return of unemployment foT the week ended April 29 was onlyJpM which, considering the times, was not thought to bo an undue number. Councillor F. R. Cooke moved : “ That this council is not satisfied with the reply of the Minister of Public Works in reference to the allotment of public money to assist unemployment. Christchurch, with only twenty-two unemployed on the Public Works shows scandalous negligence of this district, and the statement that on April 29 the Labour Department only returned 114 unemployed is not a. fair statement, because there were a bigger number than that in the iron and brass and agricultural implement trades alone, and we ask for a return of the men employed m Auckland, Dunedin and Wellington, at the date on which Christchurch had only twenty-two employed on the Public Works.” , Councillor Cooke said that he was sure there were more than 114 men out of work on April 29. Many large arms "had cut down their staffs and among general labourers alone there vere hundreds of unemployed. The fact that only twenty-two men were employed by the Department on relief works near Christchurch was evidence of tho Government’s neglect.

Councillor H. T. Armstrong, in seconding tho motion, said that the Government was directly responsible for the unemployment. It had failed to carry out. the policy of centralising on railway works and it had discharged men wholesale from tho Civil Service Councillor R. D, Martin said that last week there were 250 names of men unemployed on the electricity department’s list. The Government showed shocking and callous neglect of the unemployed and at the same time attracted immigrants to tho country by means of false pretences. Councillor E. R. M’Combs said the council should protest, strongly against the Government’s policy.

Councillor K. H. Andrews said that he would not support the motion in its present form. It was - not always the Government’s duty to spoon-feed the people, a.M he protested against criticism based on that assumption. The motion was pure political propaganda. He tv as sorry for the unemployed, but what was the good of always attacking the Government? Councillor J. K. Archer: Well, suggest a different motion.

Councillor D. G. Sullivan, M.P., asked who was to take the responsibility if the Government w not. Every Government in the world took the moral obligation of trying to find work for the unemployed. Councillor Andrews was practically saying that as far as the Government was concerned, the unemployed could live on air and roost in. the tiees. Councillor Andrews : That’s your inference.

Councillor Archer said ho was nob pledged to any particular motion. The wording was Councillor Cooko’s. Councillor H. Hunter said the Minister’* statement was a very callous one indeed. There were at least a thousand unemployed in and around Christchurch. All these men could be employed if the Government wished, and while i.hev were not employed was a. national loss. The Government, however, did not want to see the unemployed given, work. * It was hand and glove with the employers throughout the country, and the idea behind It all was to ktep down wages. Councillor A. Manhire questioned the sincerity of three who were asking for Government assistance, well knowing that the Government would do nothing. He moved that a conference of local bodies should bo called to consider what relief works could be put into operation to give relief to tiie unemployed at once. It was useless sending to the Government, which had its hands full.

Councillor A. 'Williams supported Council Man hi re’s view.

Council H. T. Armstrong said that tho matter was not an amendment, as he was prepared to support both. The Mayor said that ho could withhold Councillor Manhire’s motion until later.

Councillor Manhire then moved, as fin alternative amendment, that the letter should l»e received and tho Government thanked for its reply (laughter).

The Mayor insisted on putting Councillor Cooke’s motion first, and it was carried by ten votes to nine, the division list being:— Ayes (10). Noes (9).

Tho Mayor then asked Councillor Manhire to toot© his amendment. “ It’s no use now,”, said Councillor Manhire.

“ All right, if its no use wo don't want it,” said the Mayor. Councillor Winsor asked leave to move Councillor Manliire’s motion and after a good deal of talk and questioning of the Mayor's procedure, the motion was carried unanimously in the following form - “ That a conference of local authorities be convened to consider what stops may he taken to relievo the needy unemployed.”

Hart Williams Wright Klesher Martin M’ Kolia v Archer Man hire M’Comhs Andrews Cooke Brunt Hunter Herbert Armstrong Winsor Sullivan Hervey Thacker