"no pay without work..."
1930 Unemployment Act
The
pressure to put food on the plate increased as unemployment rose, and the
government’s Unemployment Act of 1930 insisting there would be no pay without
work, with a number of futile work schemes put in place, made people feel as
though there were second-class citizens, and this initiated the anger of the
people towards the government.
There was a slow rise in unemployment in 1930. At the start
of February 1931, around 8000 were unemployed, but, by the end to February
1931, however, the number of unemployed rose suddenly to 27 000. The figure
continued to rise to 51 000 by June and up to a staggering 80 000 in 1933 which
meant that 12% of the workforce was unemployed. Although this was the official
figure released, the actual statistics were actually much higher as this figure
did not include the Maori, women and the underemployed. Those under such
categories were considered to be dependent on other sources of income, such as
their husbands, land etc. This was still a time when the Maori were disregarded
in state affairs and so the social and economic responses to the Depression
were focused mainly on Pakeha issues. Initially, New Zealand adopted the same
policy from Britain, which gave government benefits to those who were
unemployed, without them having to work. This changed in 1930 when Prime
Minister George Forbes introduced the 1930 Unemployment Act. Under this Act,
only those who worked for their income would receive an unemployment benefit
from the government. This Act did not go down well with the people as many were
made to do pointless jobs that made them feel undignified and under-class.
This Unemployment Board which set up the Act had an Unemployment Fund at its Disposal which was financed by a special tax of $3.00 per year on every male over 20 years old. A subsidy from the government also went into the fund. All who were registered as unemployed and had paid their levy were entitled to a payment of $2.10 per week as well as additional $1.75 for a wife and 40c per child. As the pressure on the government for such benefits increased, these amounts were lowered and the Board began a number of schemes to provide work. Historian Michael Bassett writes that the initial four Schemes introduced by the government failed because the “Board had committed itself the expenditure of more money than this fund was receiving through the Unemployment Tax.” The national income continued to decline and the problem of unemployment grew into 1931.
This Unemployment Board which set up the Act had an Unemployment Fund at its Disposal which was financed by a special tax of $3.00 per year on every male over 20 years old. A subsidy from the government also went into the fund. All who were registered as unemployed and had paid their levy were entitled to a payment of $2.10 per week as well as additional $1.75 for a wife and 40c per child. As the pressure on the government for such benefits increased, these amounts were lowered and the Board began a number of schemes to provide work. Historian Michael Bassett writes that the initial four Schemes introduced by the government failed because the “Board had committed itself the expenditure of more money than this fund was receiving through the Unemployment Tax.” The national income continued to decline and the problem of unemployment grew into 1931.
“too demoralizing for the unemployed if they were simply to be put on the ‘dole’ as men had been in England.”
In the Unemployment Act, there had been provision made for the Board to pay’ sustenance’ money to unemployed for whom no work could be found. In January 1931, however, Forbes complicated the situation when he announced that those unemployed in New Zealand would not receive any payment unless they did actual work. Forbes reasoned that it would be “too demoralizing for the unemployed if they were simply to be put on the ‘dole’ as men had been in England.” This decision meant that the Board found themselves in a situation where they had to find many more jobs for men than were currently available.
The Sustenance Rules of 1931 put the ‘no pay no without work’ programme came into effect (see sub-page for full details). Men were forced to leave their homes and do relief work elsewhere because there was shortage of work in the areas in which they lives. Most of the work schemes put in place by the government were in rural areas, where not many people lived. The Minister was adamant that no-one would receive a sustenance payment if there was lack of work in the areas in which they lived or if they refused to do the work that they were assigned to. Such work schemes had begun to make the government unpopular with the people and the introduction of Scheme 5 increased their anger as it placed them in a position of 'working for work's sake', rather than be productive. As shown in the Evening Post article to the right, even politicians such as the prominent Labour Officil Tom O'Byrne, shared the same sentiment and saw that the new regulations were impractical and a "waste of time." |