The Grey River Argus. FRIDAY, June 16, 1933. MARRIED MEN'S CAMPS.

Grey River Argus, 16 June 1933, Page 4

The Grey River Argus. FRIDAY, June 16, 1933. MARRIED MEN'S CAMPS.

As time goes on it becomes more and more evident that there is a growing prejudice and distaste against the married men’s camps which it is proposed to establish under the supervision of the Public, Works and State Forestry Departments. There has already been sufficient outcry by the married men who are unemployed and also from their wives against the eamps and the arbitrary tone which lias characterised ad the Ministerial utterances regarding them. The men who are most concerned about the scheme, the married men argue, and rightly too, that to insist on the men going into camp will be the very first step which will defeat the object the Government profess to have in view, the provision of money to keep the home fires burning. It stands to reason that the husband having to leave home to work immediately creates the maintenance of two homes, his camp living costs and those incurred by his wife and family, and means that with the <*vided sustenance available his wife and family will be the ones to suffer as the Department controlling the camp will sec that the camp commisariat fees are assured by deducting them from the men’s earnings, anti paying them the balance upon which the home must be maintained. The married men viewing the business side of the proposal cannot help seeing this cold fact and very naturally register their disfavour of the proposal. The wives, who after all are the ones common decency demands should be considered with a still more slender living allowance for themselves staring them in the face and knowing that the new order if put into • practice means a. still harder struggle to provide the merest of creature essentials naturally register their protest in no uncertain manner. It has been argued too that the presence in the home of the father 1

has an influence on the morale of the family. The main two arguments against the proposals, that of the prospect of reduced sustenance, and ofthat of being arbitrarily forced into eamp arc two sound reasons why some other way to meet the difficult situation should be found. Certainly, so far as the administration side of the argument is concerned, the operation of the eamps is comparatively easy, in aggregations of men such as the eamps would amount to, once a set of rules for their conduct were framed, and put into practice. The camp scheme is an easy solution in the way of having to provide work for the number of married men on the register of unemployed. It would certainly make things easier for departmental officials who could deal easier with the requirements of an aggregation than with the multifarious wants of the individuals separately. This suggests that the camp idea will appeal as a worry-saving device to some of the over-worked officials. Another phase of the proposition. is the telegraphed report of the deputation from the Relief Workers’ Union which waited yesterday on the -Minister of Employment, the Hon. Mr Hamilton to the effect that. “We (the Government) do not. want to be hard on married men and their families. We realise they have a difficult, time now. We say that if the Public Works and Forestry Departments eamps are manned voluntarily, nobody will be forced to go into camps. Those camps ought to be manned, and they very likely will be,” appears to have behind it a sinister threat of force, which may be interpreted to mean that force will be applied. It is possible to give the same set of words an entirely different meaning from that intend, ed, and it is to be hoped for the good of all concerned that the threat which can be read into Mr Hamilton’s utterances was not what he intended to imply. If. however. the plain unvarnished tale is intended to infer that some extreme step will be resorted to if necessary, it will be regrettable and add more to antagonise the men than any other argument they or their wives could advance. Of course if the men go into the camps of their own free will there is nothing to be said, it is the idea of coercion that will cause the trouble. The Minister pointed out that he could not see the objection to going into those camps if, payment was fair and conditions good. But will payment be fair and conditions be good? “Fair payment” should be construed to “living wage” when such an assurance would perhaps overcome in a measure the present objection to the camps for probably the fact that they were receiving honest recoinpence for their work would not only clear away some of the resentment. to the camps but lead to their establishment under desirable auspices of goodwill and contentment. If, however, the reports from some of the workers’ camps already formed are veracious some considerable improvement both in nay and conditions would require to be guaranteed before men could reasonably be expected to leave their homes. The step is a serious one and while the issue is clouded with considerable doubt as well as distinct aversion to the camps the Government should set itself earnestly to find some other more acceptable means of dealing with what is admittedly a difficult problem. It is relevant, to enquire at this juncture if the funds being applied to unemployment arc being applied in the most equitable way possible There is no very unanimous opinion that they are. A little more collaboration with the men who act as Ihe mouthpiece of those who have the misfortune to be unemployed and the Department controlling that branch of the Government administration would go a long way towards bringing about a better understanding than exists under the conditions as thev are today.