The Dominion SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1921. AN UNINSPIRED DEPUTATION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 298, 10 September 1921, Page 6

The Dominion SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1921. AN UNINSPIRED DEPUTATION

The Acting-Prime Minister had good reason for the disappointment he expressed after, listening to, the members of the Labour deputation which waited on him and other, members of the Cabinet yesterday to make representations about unemployment. The deputation consisted of prominent Labour officials, and according to one of its members “represented more workers than probably any previous deputation.” It was reasonable in these circumstances to expect that the problem of unemployment would be discussed from a practical standpoint, and that useful information and helpful suggestions would be placed before Ministers. Such a gathering of Labour officials, familiar with the detail working of nearly all sections of industry, might have been expected to put the whole problem and the means of its solution in clear shape. What they actually did was to air a few political theories and catch-cries with about as much bearing on the solution of the current problem of unemployment as the expedition to Mount Everest. They did not in any real sense even attempt to deal with unemployment, except in exaggerating the scale on which it exists in the Dominion. The few suggestions they were pleased to offer must for the most part be written down as plain foolishness. What else can be said, fox’ instance, of the suggestion that the remedy for a depression due primarily to conditions in which some of the most important sections of farming industry are brought to the brink of insolvency may be found in piling additional burdens of taxation on the man on the land?

■ It largely explains the barren futility of yesterday’s proceedings that those at present allowed to speak for the workers of the Dominion are cither unwilling or unable to envisage the true conditions of economic revival. Although it is manifest that commodities must be cheapened if trade and industry are to be-stimulated, these Labour spokesmen resolutely refuse to regard thte downward adjustment of money wages, as anything else than an outrage on the workers. Taking this attitude, they arc led„ into strange contradictions. At yesterday’s interview with Ministers, for instance, Mr. H. T. Armstrong said that unfortunately there were people who were using the present situation to lower the wages and the standard of living of the workers. Evidently hie stands with those who regard any lowering of money wages as a crime. Yet, a little latexin his speech, he said that the Government could do much (to forward house-building and provide employment) “by cheapening timber.” How are these two statements to be reconciled ? There is no doubt that if timber, or any other commodity, is cheapened, consumption will be stimulated and trade and industry revived in a corresponding degree. According to those engaged in the sawmilling industry, however, much the greater part of the price of timber consists of wages, This being so, how is timbex- to be cheapened if money wages remain at their present level ? Again, if money wages at theii- present level and the prices they entail are Responsible (for slackness of demand and unemployment, while somewhat lower money wages would bring more employment and lower prices for timber and other commodities, why is it criminal to suggest that the workers have everything to gain from a downward adjustment of money wages and prices? The plain truth is that the men who stood forward yesterday as spokesmen for Labour are turning a blind eye on the root remedy for unemployment and trade and industrial depression—a remedy which must be sought not in keeping wages nominally at a high level, but in making the financial adjustment which will best conduce to a maximum production and consumption of goods and utilities. Although it is on these lines that a full remedy must be sought, immediate temporary measures for the relief of unemployment are. of course, essential, and obstacles to unhampered action in this direction must be removed without delay. While itf was in other respects disappointing, yesterday’s discussion gave Sir Francis Bell an opportunity of clearing up to some extent thte responsibilities resting respectively pn the Government and on local bodies in regard to the organisation of relief works. It is evidently right and necessary that local bodies should accept a fair share of responsibility in dealing with unemployment in their own areas, but the Acting-Prime Minister rather overstepped the mark in contending that the Government should only be expected to make some general provision and had no duty in respect of particular localities. The Government, amongst other things, is the largest employer of labour in the Dominion. It is an employer not only of tradesmen and labourers, but of clerical and other workers, many of whom are only equal to light labour. The Gov-

eminent clearly cannot disclaim responsibility for the extent to which unemployment difficulties have been accentuated hero and in other centres of population by the displacement of workers in the last-mention-ed category. There must be some limit to the extent to which any local authority can be expected to provide relief employment for displaced public servants. The position may bo quite fairly met by a division of responsibility between the Government and local bodes.' In order that the latter may do their part it is, of course, essential that the Government should give them facilities for raising such loans as are required to finance relief works. In this connection the permission just granted to the Wellington City Council to raise a- loan of £lOO,OOO within Australasia at 61 per cent, presumably establishes a precedent the application of which will be extended as far as may be necessary.