The Northern Advocate Daily FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1935. THE UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD

Northern Advocate, 19 July 1935, Page 6

The Northern Advocate Daily

FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1935. THE UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD

Registered for transmission through

While it is cheering to discern evidence that the worst of the depression is passing and that economic conditions in the Dominion arc improving, it is nevertheless depressing that the aggregate of unemployment is still painfully high. < This is proved by the fact that at the end of June last no fewer than 53,241 s adult males were wholly or partially dependent upon the Unemployment Fund. The total has fluctuated, during the. past four years, between the minimum of 44,000 and the maximum of 75,000, while the men wholly dependent upon the board’s intermittent work scheme, known as Scheme No. 5, have fluctuated between the minimum of 31,884 and the maximum of 45,794. These are tremendous figures, which demonstrate, the huge task with which the Unemployment Board, as the agent of the Government, has had to deal, and it should 'temper .criticism of the board’s efforts. As Mr Bromley, The deputy-chairman of the Unemployment Board, said when addressing the Dannevirke Rotary Club ‘ today, the question whether • the present legislative machinery is adequate to deal satisfactorily with the problem of unemployment in New Zealand is indeed a burning one. quite possible that if a plebiscite on that quest on were to be taken, inviting a “yes” or “no” answer, the result might be a unanimous “no,” but, as Mr Bromley emphasises, it 'is a very unfortunate fact that the unemployment position would in no wise be improved as a result of this unanimous declaration of disapproval. What is to be put in the place of the present system if the volume of unemployment should unfortunately remain round abotit its present level? We are convinced that this contingency will not arise, but it may well be asked of critics: what is the, alternative to the present system? We believe that. improvement in world conditions will be reflected more quickly in this Dominion than in most parts of the globe, but the speed with which recovery will come will depend in large measure upon the manner in which the people of the Dominion cooperate to provide more work. The Unemployment Board, obviously, can do little in this direction, unless it is vested with dictatorial powers, which it may safely be said -would be resented by the people as a whole. Mr Bromley, in his speech today, indicated the powerlessness of the board to dictate to employers of labour whether they should or should not instal machinery which must inevitably swell the ranks of the unemployed; to establish new 7 industries; or still further to subsidise private enterprise in order that more workers may be employed. These ’ are points, which should be remembered when the policy of the Unemployment Board is being criticised. Should the Unemployment Board be vested with power to rationalise the labopr market, taking from employers the right to guide, the destinies of the industries in which they have invested their capital and which they have built up as a result of hard w r ork and enterprise, or to take away from the worker the right to continue in an occupation which he has filled honourably and usefully in the years that are gone? We can imagine the revolution the establishment

of such a. dictatorship would create. Yet, without the power to ration work in this way, which is not to be thought of, is a limited liability concern such as the Unemployment Board to be blamed for the continuance of so large a measure of unemployment as is represented by the fact that 53,241 adult males were wholly or partially dependent upon the Unemployment Fund on June 30? We differ with the board in regard to some aspects of its policy, but we arc decidedly of the opinion that responsible people should hesitate before they wantonly criticise a policy an effective substitute for which they do hot offer.