Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MEMBER’S THREAT.

“ Will Take Law Into My Own Hands.” EVICTION OF RELIEF WORKERS.' CSpeclal to the " Star.”) WELLINGTON, October 7. If the Government refuses to give reasonable consideration to the representations we are making.” said Mr Parry, “ I for one, am prepared as a member of this House to take the law into my own hands and to organise relief and other workers with a view to registering a protest that will make some impression on the Government.” Mr Coates: Is that a threat? Mr Parry: You can take it as you like. I am not particular about it. This brush occurred in the House yesterday afternoon when Mr W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) and Mr R. M’Keen (Labour, Wellington South) demanded that the. Government take action to prevent the eviction of relief workers. M r M’K e e n (Labour, Wellington South) moved the adjournment of the House 'to enable discussion of the question of eviction of relief workers from their homes and possible remedial measures. He said he referred particularly to a case in his electorate of a married man with eight children, who had been given notice by the Public Trustee to vacate the house and who. in the meantime, had found it impossible to obtain another house for which (out of £2 a week relief wages) he could afford to pay rent. The Public Trustee had engaged a bailiff to eject this man. The Government must know that the position was becoming impossible for both landlord and relief worker. The Government’s eyes should be opened to the difficulties facing sections of the community other than farmers. If it was a good thing to grant rebates totalling over a million sterling to Crown tenants, then it was surely a good thing to treat relief workers similarly. He urged the Government to confer with landlords and relief workers with a view to arranging for part of the rent to be paid by the Government, where a distressed family could not afford to pay all itself. Mr Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said the responsibility was being placed on owners of property, and it did not rightly belong there. It should belong to the Government. Mr Parry went on to say that he was not going to put up with another twelve months of seeing people starve without making some fight against it. He trusted the Government would give the question the consideration that it deserved. Mr Wright (Coalition, Wellington Suburbs) said Mr Parry had made out a good case, but it would not help to talk about taking drastic measures. Mr Armstrong’■(Labour, Christchurch East) said that while he sympathised with some landlords he thought the law should be altered to compel all landlords to get the sanction of a magistrate before bringing in the bailiff. After other members had spoken the Hon A. Hamilton replied. He said the House would very likely have an opportunity* of testing whether it was prepared to find the money by taxation to pav rent for these unfortunate people. There were quite a number besides relief workers who could not pay their rent. Once the Government accepted liability in this direction it would be found that it had accepted a pretty big liability, and the money would have to be found to meet it. The Minister said that an opportunity might be given the House before the session was over to decide whether it would accept that liability and where the money would come from to meet it. He did not know, however, that the House would be prepared to go very much further in the way of increasing taxation to afford a greater measure of relief. Mr 11. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, said the Minister had given no answer to the points raised. lie had completely evaded the issue. The greatest concern was not action in the future, but immediate action to overcome the difficulties of those in whose cases eviction was imminent. No system of taxation would afford the necessarv relief. It was imperative that work should be provided at sufficient wages to enable people to pay their own rent. Mr M’Keen’s motion was defeated by 43 to 20.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19321007.2.50

Bibliographic details

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 578, 7 October 1932, Page 3

Word Count
700

MEMBER’S THREAT. Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 578, 7 October 1932, Page 3

MEMBER’S THREAT. Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 578, 7 October 1932, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert