“THE PLAIN ISSUE.”

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20365, 24 July 1934, Page 5

“THE PLAIN ISSUE.”

Sustenance Payments in New Zealand. A SHARP REPLY. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, July 24. The secretary of the National Union of Unemployed, Mr D. M’Laughlin, has made the following comment upon the statement concerning sustenance issued by the deputy-chairman of the Unemployment Board (Mr W. Bromley) : Mr Bromley sets up a case which is intended chiefly to prove that for purely economic reasons it is justifiable to compel the B class “ sustenance ” men and their families to live on much less than ordinary subsistence level. The few who voluntarily accept sustenance are not in the question at all. If a man elects for' this low level, then he is wholly responsible. The Onehunga men whom Mr Bromley cites as having elected to accept sustenance did not do so wholly voluntarily; it was, as the Unemplo3'ment Board is fully aware, a n act of protest against the innovation of task or piecework on the No. 5 scheme jobs there, the only alternative to sacrifice of a just principle being socalled “ sustenance.” The plain issue at stake is this; Several thousands of New Zealand’s families are at present trying to live a human existence on sums ranging from 15s to £1 6s per week, and all the economic reasoning on earth cannot justify its existence if the necessary basis is the impoverishment of thousands of human souls, and this is the basis of so-called “ sustenance.” “ The Primary Duty.” We are repeatedly told that to preserve the fund is the board’s primary duty. We claim, and defy contradiction, that the board's and the Government’s primary duty is to preserve the human lives dependent on the fund, and any other view which is contrary to this is inhuman and unworthy of a civilised, Christian country. The £250,000 set aside by the board for the purpose of experimenting with new industries could provide the prim-

ary needs of every “ sustenance ” family in the Dominion. The necessity for new industries is non-existent, but that of human families is ever present, and ever-recurring.

To quote ordinary present-day standard wages as a level, below which the sustenance rates must be kept, is fallacious reasoning, and takes no account of the fact that standard wages are not family living wages. If the present economic order cannot permit families to have access to the means of decent family existence then' it must be radically altered to fit human needs, because these never alter.