FURTHER STUDY NEEDED

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 74, 28 March 1930, Page 10

FURTHER STUDY NEEDED

Able and well-considered as is the report of the special committee on unemployment there is a possibility of its failing to achieve iUi purpose, through popular misunderstanding. The report is necessarily long and somewhat involved; and it seems that, in consequence; public opinion has seized on one or two major recommendations and overlooked other equally important proposals. For example, one idea in the public mind appears to be that the report proposes a "dole," or sustenance payment, instead of work. This impression is corrected in an, address given by Mr. T. O. Bishop at Wanganui. Mr. Bishop points out that the report proposes the establishment' of a Board charged with the duty of studying measures ' to enlarge the field of economic employment, so as to absorb the greatest possible proportion of the population in productive work. The Board is also to co-ordinate public works so that they will absorb the greatest number of workers temporarily displaced from seasonal occupations. In view of these recommendations it is entirely erroneous to suggest that sustenance payments are proposed instead of work. There is rfrovision for v payments, but such are to be made only when work cannot be found. This should be understood in order that the report may be intelligently criticised. It should not be rejected, either in part or as a whole, on a casual reading. The support which we gave to the report on its first publication was based upon the proposals it contains for organising and co-ordinating employment measures. We do not doubt that, with capable direction, the distress arising from seasonal unemployment could be greatly reduced. The trouble now arises from the fact that many agencies are working to lessen this distress, but they are not working together: There is no unified command, only a sort of guerrilla warfare against unemployment. With a strong lead from a capable Board much more effective work could be accomplished. At the same time we see weaknesses in the recommendation for sustenance payments. Mr. Bishop likens these payments to insurance, but this is not exact. A man who insures against sickness or accident pays premiums proportioned to the risk. In the committee's plan for creating an employment fund contributions will not vary according to risk. Some workers will pay year after year with scarcely the remotest possibility of ever receiving a return. They will be supplementing the contributions of their less fortunate (and sometimes less resourceful) fellows. This method of building up a fund carries with it the possibility of agitation for greater benefits. If there were a closer connection between contributions and benefits this risk would be minimised. The committee considers that there is a safeguard in the contribution principle which it has adopted, . but this safeguard is weakened by the flat rate. Even a flat rate contribution is better than straight-out provision from the Consolidated Fund, but it would be better still if some means could be found of grading contributions. This is one point which the Government and Parliament should consider ivhen dealing with the report.