Relief Work Pay.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20539, 14 February 1935, Page 8

Relief Work Pay.

Questions in House by Labour Members. “ Star ” Parliamentary Reporter. WELLINGTON, This Day. r JM!E DECLARATION that granting further increases to relief workers would endanger the stability of the Unemployment Fund was made by Mr Forbes in the House yesterday, answering a question by Mr Parr3* (Auckland Central). Mr Parry suggested that, in the light of favourable Ministerial comments on the state of the country’s finances, the Government should at once consider the advisability of placing the unemployed on work of national importance at standard rates of pay, and that, while the work was being organised, the sustenance provisions of the 1930 Act should be put into force. “ The Unemployment Board,” replied Mr Forbes, “is endeavouring to get a maximum number of unemployed re-absorbed in employment under standard conditions. The success attained in this direction is reflected in the fact that the combined number of 32,900 on sustenance and Scheme No. 5 of relief to-day is 12,800 fewer than the peak number, 45,700, of August, 1934, and is the lowest number since March, 1931. The relief allocations paid to these men recently had been increased, and to-day are on a much more favourable basis than was the case a year ago.” Mr Parry: It would be as well to answer the question. Mr Forbes: I am advised regarding sustenance payments that an additional annual expenditure of £175,000 already is involved in the increase granted recently to the unemployed, and further general increases' cannot be made at present without endangering the stability of the Unemployment Fund. The Government and the Unemployment Board are closely watching the position, and are anxious to make the best possible provision to meet cases in which specially necessitous circumstances are shown on investigation to exist. Such cases always are sympathetically considered. Mr Parry: Thanks for the ordinary sidestep. No Discrimination. There has been no unfair discrimination used against country relief workers in designing the new scales of unemployment relief, declared Sir Alexander Young, replying to Mr Samuel (Thames). The Minister said that, on the contrary, the new scales had had as one of their specific objects the narrowing of the gap which previously existed between allocations for urban and rural centres. A sum of £175,000 a year was entailed in the operation of the new scales, and the ment Board advised that its accounts indicated that a large proportion of that increase was being paid to men registered in country areas. Mr Safmuel: The discrimination is most unfair. Several other questions bearing on unemployment were asked. Mr Howard (Christchurch South) tabled a question urging that payment of relief workers should be increased by 10s a week.

Supporting the representations for increased payments of relief workers, Mr Chapman ' (Wellington North) directed attention to the state of the Unemployment Fund, which, he said, had on December 31 last a surplus, including £488,157 of imprests outstanding, of £1,966,755. Mr Sullivan (Avon) asked the Minister to withdraw the notice compelling men on sustenance to report twice a week. He suggested that reporting once a week was sufficient, particularly as under the present arrangement chances of obtaining casual employment were affected adversely.