RELIEF AND EMPLOYMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 127, 31 May 1934, Page 10

RELIEF AND EMPLOYMENT

The statement made by' the Prime Minister yesterday regarding Cabinet's examination of unemployment policy went no further than indicating the scope of the investigation, the Government's aim and the monetary difficulty/ The Govern-, ment, Mr. Forbes stated, was making a full survey of the problem and examining the various schemes at present in operation. It desired to do all it possibly could for the unemployed, but it was more or less limited in its actions by the amount of money available. This, money difficulty was mentioned by the Minister of Employment in Auckland, and he hinted at a v loan. The crux of the question is cost. Some people, seeing a substantial cash balance in the Unemployment Fund, may think that a big improvement can be made with the money now available. But they forget that this sum, though great, is small in proportion to the total expenditure. Last year the Unemployment Board spent within' 2-| per cent, of its receipts for the year. It could have spent only sixpence more in the pound without. drawing upon - the reserves which have been carefully husbanded to assure that^ even in an emergency, relief on the present scale shall not be interrupted. The possibilities of Cabinet's survey, therefore, are largely such as lie within a rearrangement of, the present schemes—saving a little here, so as to give a little more there—or in" the provision of new funds. To suggest that much more can be done is to lead to inevitable public disappointment.

It is desirable that the examination should be made, however, and all parts of the present policy brought under review. There has been public criticism of the various subsidy schemes, and the best way to meet this is to issue the fullest information on, the cost of these schemes, the benefits derived from them, and the possibility of substituting other plans. One particular point on which we think public reassurance is needed is the effect of subsidised work in the country. No doubt this is helpful to the farmer, but the Unemployment Fund is to help the unemployed. In the same way help obtained by local authorities and builders must be merely incidental to the main purpose. No industry should be encouraged to expect subsidised labour as a permanency. Cabinet should, we believe, also seize this opportunity to give a lead to the country in a reemployment policy. Relief is important, but the urgent demand for greater relief should not lead us to accept relief works as a fixed item in our social system, with no prospect of a change except in an improvement of world conditions. We have had a relief policy for three years. Admittedly it is difficult to discover anything better/There is all the more need, then, for approaching this as a national and non-party problem. We may recall the suggestion to this effect made three months ago ,by "Observer." Because the issue is so hedged round with difficulties we should free ourselves from the hobbling ties of party criticism and seek a permanent solution as a nation.