RELIEF CAMP POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 139, 14 June 1932, Page 9

RELIEF CAMP POLICY.

ATTITUDE OF MINISTER. CRITICISM BY LABOUR M.P.'S. "MTSINTERPRETATION" DEN 1 ED. As tlie outcome of a conference held yesterday l>y Auckland Labour M.P.'is at which Messrs. M. J. Savage, W. J. ■Jordan, H. G. I\. .Mason, F. W. Schramm, W. E. Parry, J. A. Lee and A. S. Richards were present, tlie following statement dealing with unemployed problems was issued: — It is impossible to reconcile the recently-jiubliislied statements of the Minister of Employment, the Kt Hon. J. G. Coates, with other recent communications made to local members of Parliament. Mr. Coates says there has been misinterpretation. The recent policy in Auckland has been to demand that, men go to camps, many of which impose a tax on health and strength such as few men can withstand. It was then announced that all those not considered lit for these highly-artificial conditions, were not a charge on the Unemployment Board.

"First Charge on Fund." Representations were made by loeal Labour members of Parliament on behalf of the men so neglected by the Unemployment Board. Mr. Coates' telegrams in reply stated that it had to be understood that the first charge on the unemployment fund was for able-bodied unemployed, and that those who, for medical reasons, could not endure tlio life and work in camp were to look to the> hospital boards. He further stated in his replies, however, that inquiry would be made into the possibility of offering such men relief work other than camp work. The local members of Parliament comment that it is impossible to understand how the recent Auckland policy has been due to any misinterpretation of instructions. The members of Parliament clearly raised •the exact point in issue, and Mr. Coates replied expressly confirming the policy which the members were challenging. Had the communications been with one individual member there might be some possibility of suggesting misunderstanding, but when quite a number, acting independently, had communicated with Mr. Coates and'all interpreted his replies as definitely confirming the policy complained of, and which tlio Auckland unemployment office was enforcing, it is ridiculous to suggest that the local members and tho local unemployment office have all misinterpreted communications from Wellington. "Extreme Test." Mr. Coates' plea of misinterpretation covers the fact that he has at length realised tho feelings caused in every section of the community by the harshness of the policy of pretending that no one was entitled to unemployment relief who was unequal to the extreme and artificial test of camping and working in swamps in winter. Men lees fit had been accepted as fit for the war. Referring to the statement that inquiry will be made into the possibility of offering relief work to men not accepted for camp work, the local MJP.'s comment that there is nothing involved that should require long consideration. It is simply a question of going on with what the Unemployment Board was previously doing, pending the formulation of an improved policy, and tho indofinitenees of this reply further shows the difficulty of getting any definite pronouncement of policy from the Minister.