‘MOST OUTRAGEOUS/’

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20364, 23 July 1934, Page 4

‘MOST OUTRAGEOUS/’

Further Protest Against Sustenance Pay. RELIEF SYSTEM CONDEMNED. “ This is easily the most outrageous thing that has happened under the present administration. It is less than the money allowed for prisoners.” That was how the Mayor of Christchurch (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.) described the sustenance rates for B class relief workers yesterday afternoon, when a protest was made at a public meeting convened by the Mayor at the request of the Canterbury Unemployed Workers’ Association. Mr J Mathison presided. There was a full attendance and the following resolution was passed unanimously :

“ That this meeting of Christchurch citizens strongly condemns the action of the Government and the Unemployment Board in forcing B class men on to a privation sustenance. We ask Parliament to insist on justice for the unemployed by passing the Unemployment Amendment Bill introduced by the Mayor, providing for sustenance in accordance with the 1930 Act and the abolition of the No. 5 and other relief schemes. We declare that the condition of the unemployed at the present time is a disgrace to the community. The Bill quoted provides for full sustenance on the 1930 basis: £1 Is for the man, 17s 6d for the wife and 4s for each child for all workers not being provided with work at award rates.” x Mayer In Sympathy. The Mayor said he was entirely in sympathy with the protest against the inadequate sustenance provision which had been made for the unemployed. “ This is easily the most outrageous thing that has happened under the present administration,” he said. “It is less than the money allowed for prisoners. As the Mayor of the. city I am not going to stand for the starvation rates that have been offered by the Government and if there is going to be any more of it I am going to ask everyone to meet me in the public square, rank on rank, and invite the Prime Minister or anyone to come and stand there and defend the barbarous attitude they have adopted.” There were many local bodies who had dismissed their regular staffs and are having their work done by unemployed labour, said the Mayor. The principle was entirely wrong. lie advocated the prevention of those methods, the payment of general sustenance rates, and the abolition of all relief schemes. That would result in men, now on relief work, being reabsorbed into their ordinary occupations. “ There is to-day an unutterable disgust at the present payment of sustenance, right throughout the country.” he said. *A ° U know my views. Nothing has ever been done in this country throughout its history to compare with this. I am in entire sympathy with you in this protest.” Comparison In Rates.

T. West asked if the system was compatible with the national welfare. Under the No. 5 scheme a married man could earn 22s 6d a week and on sustenance rates he received 17s 6d a week. A married man with one child received 27s a week and on sustenance 19s 6d—with two children 31s 6d and 21s 6d and with three children 36s as compared with 23s 6d. It was degrading one section of the community to conditions which should not be allowed to exist. Mr G. T. Thurston, on behalf of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, said the action of the Government was so insidious that supporters of the party themselves had been constrained to voice their disapproval. That was exemplified at the annual meeting of the Citizens’ Association in Christchurch. The position beggared description. Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P., said an end had to be put to relief work in every shape and form. Fully half the work that was being done by way of relief would, in the ordinary course of events, be done at standard rates of pay. There should be no money available for large firms to take advantage of the building subsidy. The method of administering the funds was wrong. Mr A. E. Armstrong, president of the Canterbury Unemployed Workers’ Association, also spoke.

(Other references to sustenance pay appear on Page 6.)