SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS

Waikato Independent, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3274, 4 March 1937, Page 7

SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS

UNEMPLOYED’S CHOICE REMIT FROM THAMES At Tuesday’s meeting of the South Auckland Association of Country Chambers of Commerce, Mr T. Garland, the Thames delegate, brought up the question of sustenance payments, pointing out that these now were only a few shillings below unemployment relief workers. They did not object to increased sustenance payments, but recently a circular had been sent out offering unemployed men the choice of going on sustenance or not. The matter affected the chamber, for as businessmen they had to pay. By giving the unemployed the right to go on sustenance it deprived local bodies of labour. The Thames chamber held that it was morally wrong to give encouragement to the belief that a man could accept payment for doing nothing, as what was morally wrong could not be politically right. Messrs Garland and Marshall (Paeroa) said that they strongly supported the Thames viewpoint. A wrong impression had got abroad, stated Mr Marshall, that local bodies were getting cheap labour. This was contrary to fact. He felt that no one could support the principle of workers being paid for doing nothing. Mr Leach (Paeroa) held that it would be all right if the chamber intended to apply the principle of “no work no pay” to all, but he thought it unfair to always pick on the bottom dog. The principle should be applied to all. In a brief statement Mr J. Thorn, M.P. for Thames, said that of the 20,000 on sustenance, nearly a half were unfit for work. Many were returned soldiers. The sustenance payment was to a large extent an invalidity pension. He admitted it was hard to defend a decision that men should get payment for not working when there was work to do. However, certifying, officers throughout the country had reported that many local bodies had exploited the unemployed. By placing all unemployed on sustenance, workers for jobs would be drawn from that class, and the Government would then know exactly what numbers of unemployed there were. On the other hand, the Government had also declared that any man on sustenance who was offered work under decent conditions, and who refused it, would be put off sustenance.

On the suggestion of the chairman the matter was referred back to the Thames chamber to bring forward again as a notice of motion. Mr Schofield remarked that it was a big question upon which there was a big divergence of opinion.