MARRIED MEN'S CAMPS

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20957, 11 September 1933, Page 3

MARRIED MEN'S CAMPS

_____s•— MEETING OF PROTEST FEARS OF GOVERNMENT'S INTENTIONS A strong protest against the institution of married men's camps under the Unemployment Board was expressed at a meeting presided over by the Mayor (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.), at the Civic Theatre yesterday afternoon. The speakers included the Rev. L. A. North and the Rev. L. McMaster, both of whom expressed their opposition to the scheme, and also Messrs E. J. Howard, M.P., L. Burney (president of the Unemployed Workers' Association), R. Macdonald, and C. Yardley. The following resolution, to be conveyed by the Mayor (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.), to the Minister for Employment (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) was passed:—

"That this meeting of citizens of Christchurch expresses its abhorrence of the policy of the Unemployment Board in endeavouring to introduce labour conscription in New Zealand by now forcing married relief workers through economic compulsion to accept work in country camps. We have every ground for suspicion that the established camps are the, forerunners of others, and that once the unemployed are divided in this matter attacks will be made on the wages and condition of the men in the camps by the introduction of piece-work and the enforcement of permanent residence and other such measures. In support of the foregoing protest this meeting favours nhe immediate establishment of a citizens' committee to co-operate with the Canterbury Unemployed Workers' Association, the Trades Union movement, and all sympatnetic elements in other spheres or life, to concentrate on effective opeosition to the compulsory drafting of unemployed into camps."

Sympathy for Unemployed

Mr North said that he came with a very sincere feeling of sympathy for the unemployed. He considered that the sending of the married men to camps was a poor resort and a shocking compromise on a matter that was so vital. He felt very strongly for any man who protested against sucn compulsory action. The arguments that some men wanted to go to camps and that some wives were glad to get their husbands out of the homes to the camps were a very poor mitigation of the circumstances.

"I can see no justification for such a step as the Government is contemplating," he said. "It has been naid that there is a comparison between men going to camp in war period and those doing so now. That is not correct, for whatever were the rights and wrongs of the war there was then an incentive of honour in going to camp. That incentive does not exist in the present circumstances."

In conclusion Mr North extended "to those whose rights and liberties were threatened" the sympathy of the Church, and of all Christian people. Mr McMaster said that home life was the foundation of the state and of society. From visiting hundreds of homes in the city he knew the good influence of the husband in a home. If the man was taken away the wife's task was impossible on relief wages. Men had to be compelled to go into camp because the reward offered was not commensurate with the sacrifice demanded. If the wage offered were sufficient to enable the men to feel easy about their wives and families, he had no doubt that many men would go to the camps willinglv. The Government apparently had "a scheme for a whole series of married men's camps. If an adequate protest was now made the Government might be induced to stay its hand. Work in City or Sustenance. Mr Burney said that on a previous occasion the Prime Minister (the lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes) had returned from England with a surprise for the unemployed, and it was to be conjectured what he would do when he arrived back in 14 days' time—probably an elaborate camp scheme. The unemployed of Christchurch had no desire to go to camp or to go away from the city at all. Their contention was that if work could not be given sustenance should be paid. It would be found that the present insistence on camps was the Government's last fight against the payment of sustenance.

Mr Macdonald said that the first married men's cnmp was an established fact in Canterbury. The association was prepared to give the names of a dozen men who were being victimised because they had refused to go. The Public Works Department had become merely the supervisor of a scheme which was carried out by slave labour. If a dole were instituted great numbers of men would be absorbed into work simply because employers had been dismissing men and then turning round and engaging them under relief schemes. He advised all employed to join the association, and then put the resolution to the meeting. The resolution was seconded by Mr Yardley. According to the Minister for Lands, anyone who advocated a dole was "a lazy loafer," he said. If that was so, 50 per cent, of the people of New Zealand came under the stigma—including many members of local unemployment committees. The No. 5 scheme was a gigantic snowball, breeding unemployment. It prevented men from being reabsorbed in industry. Mr E. J. Howard.

Mr Howard said that he had been struck by the moderate tone of the previous speakers. People did not realise the magnitude of unemployment in New Zealand. If all the men and their dependents were concentrated in one city they would make a population greater than that of Auckland. The people of the Dominion had worked for the £4,000,000 that they had given for unemployment taxation, and yet the unemployed had to work for it again. Half of the jobs under the No. 10 scheme, now being paid for out of relief moneys, would in other circumstances have been paid for out of ordinary funds. The married men's camp scheme was totally different from that under which public works had formerly been conducted. At those camps the men had been with their wives and children, and there had been schools, libraries, and other facilities. He wholeheartedly supported the resolution. The resolution, when put, was carried unanimously.