The Press Friday, May 20, 1932. Local Unemployment Committees.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20551, 20 May 1932, Page 10

The Press Friday, May 20, 1932. Local Unemployment Committees.

The resignation of the Wellington Unemployment Committee, reported in The Press this morning, recalls the reeent quarrel between the Christchurch Unemployment Committee and the Unemployment and both incidents suggest that the powers and duties of local unemployment committees need to be more clearly defined. Eoth in Wellington and in Christchurck the trouble has arisen over the alleged failure of the Board to keep the committees informed of its intentions or to consult with them on specifically local problems. The Board may take the view, though it will be foolish if it does, that it is not obliged to do either of. these things; but the local committees should not be left to find this out for. themselves. Though at first these committees had considerable responsibilities, the second Unemployment Board seems gradually to have superseded them in favour of the local officials of the Department of Labour, without indicating plainly that this was its intention. In the circumstances it is only natural that the committees, some of which were doing valuable and difficult • work before the Board Avas created, should feel slighted. In Christehurch this feeling was intensified by a letter from the Board which came very near to being insulting. The Board should at least bear in mind that members of local committees give their services for nothing, that they have a thankless task to perform, and that in many cases they have been targets for criticism which should have been directed at the Board itself. It will be most unfortunate if, because their usefulness is under-rated and they are off-handedly treated, other local committees follow the example which has been set in Wellington. To be economical and effective, schemes o£ relief work must be based on a thorough knoAvledge of local requirements, which the Board is more likely to find among a well-chosen committee than in a Government official. Moreover, the Board's Number 5 Scheme requires co-operation among local bodies, and one of the main benefits of the local committees is that they make - such co-operation possible. A statement by the Minister for Employment defining clearly the relations of local committees to the Unemployment Board and to local officials of the Department 'of Labour would probably prevent a repetition of what has happened in Wellington and would help the public to understand the highly complicated machinery of unemployment relief.