WORK IN RELIEF CAMPS.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20878, 10 June 1933, Page 12

WORK IN RELIEF CAMPS.

MARRIED MEN'S PLIGHT,

COMPULSION OPPOSED. Twenty-five delegates of business organisations, the churches, social workers, local bodies, and relief workers in Christchurch expressed their disapproval at a conference yesterday of any attempt to force married unemployed men into camps against their will. The Mayor, Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P., presided, and he was requested by the conference to secure a definite assurance from the Minister for Employment, the Hon. A. Hamilton, that no compulsion would be used and that those married men who would not go into camps would not be penalised by the relief authorities. Those present included: Bishop WestWatson; Cr. J. K. Archer, chairman of the By-laws and Finance Committee of the City Council; Cr. G. T. Thurston, Cr. A. E. Armstrong, representing the Socialist party; Major G. T. C. Dry and Major A. Suter, of the Salvation Army; Mr A. C. Bretherton and Mr A. T. Wrigley, representing the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce; Mr W. J. Boyce and Mr H. P. Glue, representing the Canterbury Progress League; Mr E. Parlane and Mr J. McCombs, M.P., from the Labour Representation Committee; Mr James Mackenzie, representing the Halswell County Council; Mr G. Maginness and Mr W. McArthur, representing the Paparua County Council; Mr C. R. N. Mackie, representing the Society for the Protection of Women and Children; Mr W. W. Scarff, representing the Heathcote County Council; Mr A. B. Blance, Mr L. W. Burney, Mr Yardley, and Mr R. Macdonald, representing the Canterbury Unemployed Workers' Associatino: Mr D. Jones, representing the Christchurch Plumbers' Union; Mr H. Pankhurst, of the Trades and Labour Council: the Rev. L. A. North, president of the Christchurch Ministers' Association, and the Rev. E. Drake, of i the Ministers' Association.

Social Implications.

The Mayor said the question was one of great importance to the whole community because of the social implications of the camp scheme. It was naturally of tremendous interest to relief workers as a whole, and particularly that section of the relief workers directly involved. Much opposition had been raised against the proposal to force married men into camps, and as a result the Minister had modified his attitude somewhat. Mr Sullivan said the Minister had told him that the camps were standard Public Works establishments and that he hoped the unemployed would go to them. He had said that in the meantime he did not propose to impose any penalty on those married men who did not accept work in the camps. However, it appeared to him, Mr Sullivan added, that it was not clear what the position would be if the camps were not filled. It seemed as though there was a suggestion that if the Minister were unable to secure sufficient men to go to camps voluntarily, coercion might be used later. From enquiries he had made in Wellington this week he had been informed that wages at the camps would be at the rate of 10s a day for six days of the week. This payment was based on the contract system, which meant that men did not receive a flat rate of 10s, but more or less, according to their earning power. A member of the Unemployment Board had told him that in one camp the average earnings of the men during one week had been £3 Is.

Major Dry said he was glad to hear that the Minister said there would be no compulsion. There were many instances of hardships, and this would be intensified if some homes were broken up. It was much better to have a man at home, especially where a family had to be cared for. Mr Burney said the fact remained that men were being forced to go into the camps. There was a definite qualification in the Minister's statement, and he did not think the position had been cleared up satisfactorily. According to the Minister, the legal compulsion had been removed, but the compulsion of economic circumstances remained, and men would either have to go to the camps or starve in the city. Cr. Thurston said there was authentic evidence that one man's form had been torn up in his face simply because he said he would not go to a camp. This showed plainly that unless men were prepared to go to camps their only alternative was to starve in the city.

Speaking for the organised relief workers, Mr Macdonald said their delegates were present at the conference with an open mind, although they knew the opinion of the relief workers and what action they would take in the future in the event of not receiving support from other quarters. It had been proposed that action should be taken by the relief workers, but it had been decided to withhold any move until the conference had been held. If the conference were unsuccessful the relief workers would proceed along their own lines. Meaning of a Penalty. The Mayor said men had gone to him that morning stating that they had been ordered into camp. However, only one man had said he did not want to go but was still being sent. He added that when the Minister had told him there would be no penalty for men who refused to go into camps he inferred that it was meant that these men would not be refused sustenance or work in the city.

Mr Yardley, speaking for the relief workers, said that the rate of payment in camps resulted in men being worse off than they would be on city jobs. He said that labourers at Waitaki received about £ll 10s a month. Before leaving Christchurch they had to allocate 30s a week for their wives. Then they had to pay lis 6d in wages tax, 5s for the medical association, 2s for lighting, and £1 a week for cookhouse services and other small expenses. The outcome was that some men found themselves in debt to the extent of 5s at the end of the first month. These figures had been supplied to him by those who had gone to the hydro-electric works recently. If men left Waitaki, and they found the greatest difficulty in doing so, they were ineligible for work in the city for three months. The question of most moment concerned the compulsory nature of the camps, and the separation of husbands from their wives. A man would probably not have more than 35s to send to his family in the city out of about £3 a week. He thought it might be suggested to the Minister that if the camps were to be run by the Public Works Department, standard wages of 14s a day. should be paid. Public Meeting Proposed. Cr. Archer said it had been suggested that a large public meeting should be held to test the feeling in the city. However, the present conference was fully representative and more widely-spread views could be secured. He, thought the conference should decide whether a public meeting should be held to protest against sending men to camp against their wish. Mr Blance said the Christchurch unemployed had decided to adopt the same attitude toward the camps as had the unemployed organisations in Auckland and Wellington. They would definitely fight any attempt to force men into camps. It was a fact that one man who had refused to go to a camp had had his card torn up in his face and told that if he did not go he could starve in the city. This was not an isolated case, and there were thousands of unemployed in the city who would not go into camp if any attempt were made to force them to do so, nor could they be made to go while the wages being paid were on their present level. , Their object in attending the confer-

ence was to urge the necessity of keeping married men in the city with their families. There was no power on earth that could stop the unemployed organising to combat the camp scheme in spite of the attempts which had been made in other centres by the police to prevent organisation being carried out. There was no doubt that wages and conditions in the camps were worse from the worker's viewpoint than they were in the city, and they intended to go ahead with their plans to fight the whole camp scheme. Mr Blance said the unemployed of Christchurch were definitely linking up with the organisations in Auckland and Wellington to fight against the camps. If a man went to camp voluntarily that was his own business, but it would not be long before he tramped back to town. A great deal of beautifying work could be done in Christchurch to keep the men here. Yet men were being asked to divorce themselves from all their interests in order to work in the backblocks in the middle of winter.

"Condition of Employment."

Cr. Thurston said the conditions and wages in the camps were actually being forced on married men. The position was that to secure work a man had to be married, which meant that single men were not given the chance to take work that married men should not be asked to do. He knew of one man who was told when applying for work at Waitaki that he could secure it on one condition—that he was married.

Cr. Armstrong said he believed a united effort should be made by the business community and citizens generally to protest against compulsion being brougnt to bear on men. There was no compulsion for single men's camps, but the young men were forced to go by economic circumstances. They went regardless of pay so as not to be a burden at home. This was the only reason inducing men to go to the single men's camps. The whole system was a disgrace and did no credit to the Government or the authorities controlling the situation. If conditions did not improve it would be found that married men would also have to go to camp voluntarily or starve. They would not be doing their duty on behalf of this unfortunate section of the community if they did not make a strong protest against these men being forced into camps. If the position were as stated, it was high time New Zealand demanded the payment of a dole. Everyone contributed to the Unemployment Fund and sustenance should be regarded as a system of insurance. The business section of the community especially owed a duty to these men and it should demand that the Government should pay full sustenance and not conscript men into the backblocks.

He refused to believe that every man out of work in Christchurch could not be put on to productive work in the city. He joined with the relief workers in asking the conference to agree upon some form of demonstration which would show the Government that they protested against men being separated from their families. It was obvious that the object was to break up the workers as much as possible. The single men had been split up, and now the married men were to be forced out of the cities. They should ask every single man to come in from the camps and help in the fight against segregating married men.

Improving Conditions.

Mr Maginness considered that the meeting, if it were going to do any good at till, should ask the Minister to make conditions and wages in the camps better than under the No. 5 Scheme in the city. He would not agree to any large protest against sending men to camp, If their earning power would benefit he thought they should go, but the Minister should be asked to improve conditions so that men would go willingly to camps. Mr McCombs objected to the statement of the Public WorKS Department that it paid standard wages. The department should say that it was taking advantage of the economic situation and paying relief wages on standard public works. In view of the Minister's statement that there would be no compulsion, something was amiss, because there was sufficient evidence to enable them to state definitely to the Minister that there had been a departure from nis promise. He should be communicated with at once on the point.

The very least that should be paid in relief should be 14s, such as obtained under Sir Joseph Ward. A huge protest meeting might be quite unnecessary, for by communicating with the Minister the position might be cleared up satisfactorily.

Cr. Archer said he was still concerned about the question of securing the city's opinion. The problem was to And a hall large enough to hold those who would attend. If they knew what people as a whole thought on the question they could speak very strongly to the Government. The Government of a country had only one right, namely, to act on public opinion, but it had no right to defy public opinion. If they could find out whether the Government was defying public opinion in this instance, they could point out that it was exceding its rights. Rights of Government. The people were providing the money for relief by direct taxation and the Government had no right except to act as trustees of the people. There was a vital difference between spending money out of the Consolidated Fund and money from the Unemployment Fund, which was raised for one purpose. Mr North said a general discussion on conditions was only clouding the issue. The question was whether married men were being forced into camps. Mr McCombs moved that the Mayor should be asked to make further representations to the Minister for Employment regarding the compulsory nature of married men's camps, and also the question of the payment of adequate wages. With sufficient inducement, his motion added, there would be no difficulty in filling the camps on a voluntary basis. Mr Scarff said something had to be done to give more benefit to the men than at present. It was impossible for any more to be done in Christchurch without the imposition of further taxation on ratepayers. People could not pay the present rates, so that they could not pay anything more. It was up to the Public Works Department to do more and co-operate in providing work throughout the country. Mr Blance moved as an amendment that the meeting, while in general agreement with the resolution, should direct the Mayor to call a mass meeting of protest. He said this was the wish of the unemployed. Cr. Armstrong seconded the amendment, stating that a protest should be made right away. The longer they marked time the more firmly would the principle of compulsory camps be established. He was opposed to relief camps of any kind for married men. Single men were promised 10s a day in the camps, but to-day many were on contract, getting 5s and 6s a week.

Mr Macdonald said the opinion of the married unemployed was definitely opposed to camps in any shape or form. Whatever attitude the conference took up, the unemployed would not go to camps, and it was not right that before men received the sustenance for which they paid by taxation, they should be herded into camps. The unemployed would go to any lengths to oppose camps.

• The Mayor said it was quite clear the conference was opposed to anyone being forced to go to camp. Mr Blance's amendment was lost by eight votes to 13, and Mr McCombs's motion was carried. Mr Blance then moved that a public meeting be called should an unsatisfactory reply be received from the Minister, and this was seconded by Cr. Thurston, being approved after further discussion. ,

• A further meeting will be held at noon to-day to consider the Minister's reply.