The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1932. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF POLICY

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 68, 13 December 1932, Page 8

The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1932. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF POLICY

Two recent events of unemployment relief. The iir. - works and to nay standard City Council to spend a large sum on capital works and than if tlTAickTand idea of paying standard wages be examined it will be found that by its universal BuTthe works, sS not more than half the works If as much as £BO,OOO goes in labour cost the sum represents standard wages for a year for only 400 men. Auckland s problei is to provide for 1500. It is argued, however, that the scheme would get rid of the demoralisation involved in the performance of uneconomic work under the present relief system. Yet the Auckland program e is no more immediately necessary than much that is being done alrea j. It seems merely to substitute one form of uneconomic work (on a canital scale) for another. .... ,■ . •< While the Auckland scheme has severe limitations, attention should nevertheless be given to the northern criticism that much existing relief work involves inordinate extravagance judged on results, that it is unnecessary and and that realisation of the futility of these “made” jobs lowers the morale of the workers. There is the further fact that local bodies, apart from dearth of funds, cannot find many more works of low non-labour cost. This hue of argument lea s inevitably to a reconsideration of the policy of no relief without work,” the question of practicability being reinforced by the motive of economj tem of re ]j e f works is falling short of the intended moral effect—if the pretence is too thin-the money spent on supervision, tools and materials is being wasted. We do not believe the position is as bad as that. Relief works may be open to criticism at many points but the acceptance of the dole would be a retrograde step. The Unemployment Board should avoid having to take it by every means in its power. It may have to think and plan in .a larget way and undertake more itself, but it should strive. to retain its works policy while injecting more purpose and usefulness into it. It has to be remembered, of course, that the board has already mace considerable progress away from the domination of the No. 5 scheme and that many working under the latter are usefully employed. About 17,000 of the 64,000 men on relief, or more than one in four, are absorbed in other ways, the bulk on land improvement and development. In addition much more energy is to be devoted to placing men on small farms through Mr. Coates's scheme. In the Small Farms Bill some most unusual powers are conferred on the State. These must be used with discretion if serious difficulties are not to arise. It may he noted, however, that the German junkers, land-holding, diehard conservatives, have been forced by the inexorable pressure of unemployment to apply a sort of usehold test. Where the test was not passed, similar provision was made to lease or take land for settlement of those out of work.

While progress with settlement must be slow and cannot reduce the number of unemployed quickly, the method promises, results that are constructive, reproductive and permanent. Much will naturally depend on the wisdom and determination shown in administration but the promise is such as to justify effort and reasonable expenditure toward its fulfilment.