SUSTENANCE RATES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20359, 17 July 1934, Page 12

SUSTENANCE RATES.

Strong Protest by City Council. “GREAT INJUSTICE.” A strong protest against the sustenance rates being paid in Christchurch by the Unemployment Board was passed at a meeting of the City Council last evening. The Mayor (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.) declared that it was “ the darkest thing in a very dark record,” and added that he would be justified in calling a meeting of citizens if they could not get the Government tu change its views. The following motion, proposed by Councillor J. Mathison, was carried unanimously:— “ That the Christchurch City Council strongly supports the protest made by the unemployed workers against the inadequate sustenance rates paid by the Unemployment Board. We declare that it outrages our sense of justice and humanity, and subjects the men, j women and children who are affected by the scheme to such privation as is totally inconsistent with the lowest accepted standard of living in anv civilised community. We therefore ask the Government and Parliament of New Zealand to remedy at once this great injustice that is being inflicted on our fellow citizens by providing adequate sustenance or adequately remunerated work.” “ Desperate Plight.”, The matter came before the council when a deputation of two, representing the Canterbury Unemployed Workers’ Association, was heard. The position was outlined by Mr E. Braithwaite, who said that he asked councillors, knowing and realising the desperate plight of many men, to protest, in company with the churches and Labour organisations, against any further attacks on the living conditions of the unemplo3 r ed. After the deputation had retired the council discussed the question. Councillor Mathison said the deputation was only another indication of the extreme poverty which was being forced on the people. He then moved his resolution and speaking to it declared that it was a disgrace to New Zealand that the present state of affairs should exist. Men in every walk of life protested against the sustenance scheme and yet the Government sat back in smug complacency. He believed that the time was coming when the workers would make some very determined effort to bring the Government to its senses. The Government had to be brought to alter the conditions ruling at present. If the Government did nothing the people of Christchurch should make an effort to bring the brutality of the scheme home to the authorities. There was no justification for the even lower standard of living that was being forced on the people. Councillor E. H. Andrews explained that the sustenance scheme applied to the B class men who were unfit for ordinary relief work. The board had decided that it was uneconomical to pay the men for work they did not do. The case of the man in the deputation was that of an individual who had been reduced from 365. Mr \Y- Bromley, now deputy-chairman of the Unemployment Board, had met the Citizens’ Relief Committee and had given the members to understand that he was going to see the Hospital Board to arrange for the difference in the relief pay and the sustenance pay to be made up. That, however, had not been done. The Unemployment Board had made the mistake of bringing in sustenance pay without any arrangement to make up the difference. What the council should do was to make a strong protest against the present sustenance scheme. He then moved an amendment. “The Government could not feed the children in the orphanages or the prisoners in the prisons on the amounts that they are asking families of the unemployed to live upon,” declared the Mayor. “There is obviously the direst distress and families are going without food. I think the whole of the citizens of Christchurch and the majority of the citizens in our country must be horrified at the barbarous treatment being imposed on men, women and children. Meeting With Citizens. “If we cannot induce the Government to change the scheme I think I would be justified in your name in asking the whole of the citizens of Christchurch to meet us in the public squares of the city. Great demonstrations of all sections of the community could then be asked to protest against the starvation of men, women and children. I think we will have to consider taking such a step unless the Government agrees to improve the position of those people who are living on sustenance. While you may not agree about the wording of rc 'utions, I feel sure the sentiments I have expressed will find an echo in the hearts of all of you and in the hearts of everyone' in the city.

After discussion, the amendment was withdrawn and Councillor Mathison’s motion was adopted unanimously. Councillor H. T. J. Thacker said he thought the council should go further. He moved, therefore, as a separate motion: “That the council asks the Mayor, as a member of Parliament, to move on Wednesday: ‘That this House do now adjourn to discuss the inadequate arrangements made to feed and house the unemployed.’ ” Councillor A. E. Armstrong seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous!:/.