UNEMPLOYED RELIEF

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 5 September 1932, Page 7

UNEMPLOYED RELIEF

“OVER: THE FENCE” - SCHEME, HAWERA COMMITTEE'S ATTITUDE. “The Hawera Unemployed Relief Committee has never refused to provide labour over the fence to those fanners willing to make some contribution towards the payment of wages,” said Mr J. E'. Campbell, formerly honorary .secretary of the committe, in conversation witji a “Ha- 1 wera Star” reporter this morning. Mr Campbell, who is still actively interested in the administration of relief to Hawera unemployed, was asked to reply to criticism which took plaice last Thursday at the monthly meeting in Hawera of the South Taranaki provincial executive of the New Zealand Fanners’ Union. At that meeting the attitude of the Haw'era Unemployed Relief Comittee towards the employment of men “over the fence” was discussed and' the allegation made that the committee was not in sympathy with the farmers.

“My reply to the Farmers’ Union executive would be in terms of the circulars received from the U nenj.pl oyment Board in Wellington,” said Mr Campbell. “In November last the hoard wrote advising the committee that w T hen allocating work on private property care should he taken to see that it was developmental work that would increase the production of the land. No work was to be undertaken that the farmer was in a! position to undertake and pay for himself. Wherever possible some contribution had to he arranged for, either in cash or as a rate spread over a period. It was for the local committee to determine, knowing the circumstances of the farmer, whether he should contribute.” Continuing, Mr Campbell said that work in lieu of sustenance was adopted on account of the demoralising effect on the worker of sustenance payments for nothing. Free labour to the farmer might be equally demoralising to the farmer. A great responsibility therefore rested on the local committee ■to see that its powers were so exercised that such results were avoided and the funds expended in the best interest of all concerned and the community generally. In May last the committee wrote to the Commissioner asking for definite instruction as to the correct procedure of placing relief workers on farms under the modification of the rules of scheme 5. It was pointed out that the committee had definitely refrained from giving labour free to those it thought could afford to make at least some contribution. The Commissioner stated in reply that it was not the intention of the hoard to supply this labour free to the farmer in all cases irrespective of the farmer’s ability to provide for tlie labour himself, or to make a contribution towards same. In all oases, when considering applications for relief under any of the Unemployment Board’s schemes, the circular instructions issued from time to time by the office of the hoard were to be the committee’s guide, notwithstanding any instructions which might emanate from any other source. “Those farmers willing to make some contribution have never been refused men,” reiterated the speaker. “It is not essential that a cash payment be made immediately. There is provision in the regulations for the farmer’s contribution to be spread over a period, if necessary, in the form of a rate. It is my personal opinion that the effect of providing free labour is definitely to increase the number of unemployed in our midst. It is penalising the regular farm worker. If free labour is encouraged as some people would have it encouraged, the regular farm worker will be starved of employment. Instead of helping to solve the" problem the whole situation will be accentuated.”

Some weeks ago the committee devised a scheme whereby the number ol days’ work per week would bo increased for the worker and the employer would contribute half the cost of his wages. Many farmers already had taken advantage of the scheme, which they found to operate most satisfactorily, the result being that the men received a greater number of days’ work per week and' the farmers had more work done at half the cost. The Unemployment Board also was relieved, for it had to pay only half the amount of wages. The effect of “over the fence” employment in other districts, so far as Mr. Campbell could see, was that men well able to (pay the whole of the cost of labour for certain work were getting it done for nothing at the expense of the taxpayer and at the same time forcing a greater number of men on to the unemployment register. Sta fai as he was personally concerned he wns quite willing to confer with representatives of the Union. “I believe in my own mind that when those representatives are told of the abuses that have occurred in outside districts they will realise that the stand taken by the committee in Hawera is in the interests of both the worker and the taxpayer.’’