That argument, like any other kind of argument, is one that is open to be supported by facts and figures. Would the Minister support his argument by giving us the number of cases in which, in fact, the amount has been reduced? Therefore, what he demonstrates is that his officers have been slack, lazy or inefficient, in making the original award. The case made originally in this Chamber appears to have been that the action of his officers was entirely in the other direction. There are 30,000 appeals against the amount assessed as being inadequate. How many notices of appeal has the Minister against assessment on the grounds that people got too much? The Minister's interruption could be supported if he showed that there were 30,000 appeals against the amount granted, on the grounds that it was excessive. Otherwise, it merely means the big-tongued interruption in order to side-track discussion of a point really important to the persons concerned. There will be general agreement, I think, that men out of work who rely on State assistance in order to support themselves and their families are, at least, entitled to fair play. If we were dealing with a pensioner, a military pensioner, an old age pensioner, or an employee of a firm the precedent has already been established in this House that when an award is made it applies from the date of the claim.
It should be conceded that the State should be the model employer. Employers or firms are within their rights if they follow the example of the State. Let us apply the principle being established by the Minister to private employers or big firms. If that principle is followed outside the House, conditions of employment, instead of being bettered by this Bill, will be very considerably worsened. What does it mean in practice? That the coin the State tosses has two heads; that it does not matter what side turns up, the State wins and the unemployed man loses. We were told in the Budget that we are living in times when there is the direst necessity for economy, but we mean economy to be effected at the expense of the unemployed. Could the Minister say if any estimate has been made of the saving to the State by each week's delay in the hearing of these appeals? Is it not apparent to everyone that the longer the machine delays the hearing of the appeals the greater economy there is for the State, and the greater the loss to the unemployed? It is unreasonable to expect this House to approve of the principle that where there is an appeal against the amount granted, if the appeal is confirmed, the extra money will only be granted from the date the appeal is heard. Meanwhile, on the person against whom the appeal is lodged, money can be saved every week, every month and every year that there is delay in hearing the appeal. That is unreasonable, and the Minister should reconsider the position.