THE PRESS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1983. Fewer jobs under P.E.P.?

Press, 3 November 1983, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1983. Fewer jobs under P.E.P.?

The purpose of the alteration to the Project Employment Programme, as outlined by the Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, is to make sure that those who have been out of work for the longest period have first chance to get the P.E.P. jobs that are available. Only those who have been out of work for six months or more will be eligible for P.E.P. work. An aspect of the announcement which has not received the same attention is that the Government is making great efforts to see that the private sector takes on more workers. The P.E.P. scheme provides work for six months in Government departments, with local authorities or community organisations, or for hospital boards or education authorities.

The wages of P.E.P. workers are completely subsidised. The Private Sector Employment Incentive Scheme allows a subsidy of $75 a week for. a six-month period or a twoyear suspensory loan of $4OOO to the employer for each additional job filled through the Department of Labour. The hope is that the private sector scheme will lead to permanent employment. At the end of September, 15,720 people were employed in private sector schemes and 15,005 employed under the P.E.P. scheme. The P.E.P. scheme is not the only subsidised public sector employment scheme, but is by far the largest.

The Minister’s concern has been aroused by the fact that the percentage of those who are out of work for six months or more has increased from 12.5 per cent to 20.2 per cent in the last 33 months. This, of course, is further and dismaying evidence of the degree of unemployment. The move may be seen as rationing the P.E.P. jobs available and as steering as many people as possible towards employment in the private sector. Other countries with employment problems have also been directing their efforts towards seeing that people who have been unemployed for the longest time have priority in obtaining subsidised work. The waitipg period in Britain, for example, is 12 months. Of the 78,300 New Zealanders registered as unemployed at the end of August, 15,300 had been registered as out of work for more than 26 weeks. Those registered as unemployed for more than 13 weeks, but less than 26 weeks, numbered 16,600; those who had beep out of work for more than eight weeks, but less than 13 weeks, numbered more than 12,000. People out of work for more than four weeks, but less than eight weeks, numbered nearly 16,000. Another 17,600 had been out of work for up to four weeks. On principle, there would appear to be a rough justice in the idea that those who had been out of work longest should have first

chance at such subsidised jobs as are available. In theory, too, it would seem better for people to go to jobs in which there was a chance of permanency. The schemes may work out differently in practice. Some districts may have more longer-term unemployed than others, and a particular community may not be able to provide P.E.P. jobs that match the abilities available. While it can be argued that people should go where the work is, such a disruption as moving a household for six months is likely to be a disincentive. The cost of moving alone would in most instances be prohibitive, especially so if properties cannot be sold. The change may also alter the type of jobs available under the P.E.P. scheme. Labour Department statistics of the occupations sought by the registered unemployed show that by far the largest group — 22,321 — were unskilled workers. The next largest group were salespersons, at 6789, followed by other service workers, including domestic workers, who numbered 6706. These figures almost'certainly mean that the longer-term unemployed included many in these classifications. While much P.E.P. work is in labouring for say, a local body, some of the work being done under P.E.P. schemes for community organisations, and for education authorities, is not. . One outcome of the P.E.P. scheme is that some people get work. This is a humane response to unemployment. Another aspect is that someone, or some organisation, has to create a job. The Labour Department, properly, requires a submission on what the person being employed under a P.E.P. scheme will do. The work required in preparing such a submission may be undertaken less readily under the 26week waiting period. Dr Tom Dwyer and Professor W. E. Willmott, two sociologists at the University of Canterbury, maintain that the extension of the qualifying time to 13 weeks, which was made as an experiment in the Christchurch area, was associated with a sharp decline in the number of people employed under P.E.P. schemes. The inference of the connection is that the least skilled people are likely to be the people who remain unemployed for the longest periods. Enthusiasm for devising and offering work projects for this group is therefore likely to be correspondingly diminished.

The Christchurch practice was an experiment, which was later dropped. The new scheme is to be reviewed early in 1984. Mr Bolger’s stated intentions are clear enough. What is not clear is whether the allocation of P.E.P. jobs to those who have been unemployed for six months will do any more than drastically reduce the number of P.E.P. jobs available.