TOO BUREAUCRATIC?

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 11, 13 July 1932, Page 8

TOO BUREAUCRATIC?

NO APPEAL BODY

NEW SYSTEM CRITICISED

What has become of the "Wellington Citizens' Unemployment Committco, the executive of which resigned on 29th May last, after criticising the Unemployment Board for not taking the executive completely into its confidence? At the general meeting of the committee a decision was reached not to ■ accept the resignation of the executive, and that the Mayor should wait on the Minister of Employment and endeavour to have matters placed on a more satisfactory footing. Prom inquiries made it seems that nothing has b.een done. , The situation, said the chairman of the executive which resigned (Mr. J. I. Goldsmith) in an interview to-day, was unaltered. The Unemployment Committee was still in existence, though no attempt had been made to revive the executive, nor was that contemplated as far as he was aware. It had received no information regarding the stops taken by the Mayor towards securing from the board the rights and duties it had demanded before it was prepared to continue the work. , : CAUSING CONCERN. Mr._ Goldsmith said that the question of relief was giving him some concern in-view of what was now transpiring, as the whole complexion of relief had undergone a radical change. It could iiot be denied that the lot of the unfortunate people who were dependent on relief work and sustenance had been rendered less enviable than ever. Only those persons whose charitable interests brought them into close touch with unemployed- men and their dependants ■were in a position to appreciate fully the downward pressure that was being, steadily exertod to reduce the circumstances of'the relief workers both in work and rations, to a point where it ■was impossible for them to carry on. ■Reviewing what had occurred since the executive resigned, Mr. Goldsmith said it would almost appear that the board, having its policy of reduced relief already in mind, was anxious to freeze put, tb.e committee, which, had it remained in office, would have resisted strenuously the introduction of the iiew scale of relief. Not a day passed without recipients of relief visiting him and begging him to intercede with the authorities to obtain some improvement in the relief granted, but,he had to explain to these people that, as far as he could judge from external appearances, a set Bcale was being rigid-, ly. adhered to, and that no departure from that scale was likely to follow Sis intervention. Some eases revealed a shocking state of affairs, and he "wondered why more outspoken criticism was not being heard. t SCALE INADEQUATE. ~ Personally he felt that the board was ireally concerned, but was delaying taking steps to improve the scale until, the existing scheme had received a fair i trial; In his opinion the period of trial ■was long past, and it was necessary! Immediately to make provision for a iew scale, designed to deal with every case oh its merits, not a scale with rules laid down with. cast iron inflexibility, like; thai .'being followed with impas- . sive serenity by the Unemployment Board to-day. He was not prepared to say Jhat the Hospital Board's scale had been too high^ 'although he admitted that the" funds available for relief necessitated' a modification. At the) same time eases had been submitted to him by recipients of relief whose total benefits from employment, relief work, and rations, were from 10s to 17s a month less now than formeriy. . -. ■•■-.■■.: •.It would appear, Mr. Goldsmith continued, that the gravest injustice, was suffered by the men with the largest' families. Surely the parents.of families where the number of children under sixteen exceeded four should receive the greatest possible amount of rations. A man in .this category had his earnings limited to £2 a week, with the family • allowance added, yet •in seve-1 ral. cases that had come under his notice, a pint of milk a, day for the whole family had been granted.- No. scale based on such an inadequate appreciation of the needs of a large family could be justified. , The Hospital Board had shown its sense of justice by making extra provision for very young children, but in Wellington the Unemployment Bureau appeared to be •unable to visualise any need that could not ' be mot by one pint of milk a day. In the cases he referred to no grocery nor meat orders had been issiied. There were also cases where families which apparently were in 'exactly the same position as to nunibers of family and circumstances, wore ■being treated differently, one receiving assistance, and the other none. ...ONE-MAN CONTROL! The position was anomalous, and the control undoubtedly tended towards the bureaucratic. In the city of Wellington there were probably 40,000 contributors to the Fund, and yet one official was entrusted with the responsibility of arbitrarily deciding how 3.5,000 people should be treated, if acting strictly in conformity with' immutable regulations could be styled a responsibility. There was no appeal to Caesar; Caesar was. deaf. Could there be a greater departure from democratic principles? The time had come for some appellant body to be set up to which persons whbso dire needs were not met by the decisions of the certifying officer could put their cases. This body would tie charged with the duty of conducting a thorough investigation into each 'disputed case, and granting, only in eases where it was imperatively needed, additional milk, groceries, or meat.