THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1931. CAMPS FOR UNEMPLOYED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20965, 31 August 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1931. CAMPS FOR UNEMPLOYED.

The new Unemployment Board has announced, through its chairman, an extension of policy which, if it fulfils the promise it bears on the surface, should result in the best constructive scheme devised since the Act was passed last year. In stating that it was proposed to establish camps for single men "where they will be able to do work of a developmental character, be provided with good food and shelter and be able to earn a certain amount of pocket money" the Minister coupled with the decision a reason that is the chief justification for making such an essay. Local bodies throughout the Dominion, he said, were complaining of the expenditure they had to incur to maintain the great bulk of the unemployed. They have had reason to complain. Before there was any organised national effort to deal with this social problem, the responsibility cast on local authorities could be regarded philosophically, though it might be argued that it was not really among their duties to bear it. Once the Act came into force, special taxation began to be levied, and a national authority was created to deal with unemployment, the continued dependence on local bodies was no longer tolerable. There was good cause for those whom these bodies represented, the payers of local taxation, to complain, too. No matter what subsidy was paid for declared relief work, either the revenue or the credit of the local body was being consumed in meeting costs not covered by the allocation of relief funds. One result eagerly anticipated when the general levy was instituted was relief from exaction for local body relief. Its failure to eventuate was genefally regarded as the most disappointing feature of a scheme of unemployment provision which contained many disappoint ments.

An important admission the Minis ter made in his statement confirms much of the criticism levelled at No. 5 scheme, which has been the outstanding feature in the relief work system under board administration. Much of the work, he said, has been of an unproductive character, and of little community value. There has been a decided disposition hitherto to deny this feature o£ what has been done, though public opinion has not hesitated to affirm where no official admission would be made. In its report to Parliament this year, for example, the former Unemployment Board said : "Although scheme No. 5, can be taken advantage of by Ideal bodies only, a good deal of reproductive work has been done through this scheme—work which is calculated to benefit the primary industries either directly or indirectly." Though instances were quoted of such work as land drainage and reclamation, provision of access for settlers and the like being done —mainly by county councils, river and drainage boards —it was only too apparent to the casual observer that the cities and boroughs were spending much money in activities that could not, by any extension of the term, be called reproductive. There were flaws in this method of doing unproductive work besides that of the financial burden cast on the local authorities. Wherever the problem of unemployment has raised its head, the system of creating work merely to provide employment has been categorically condemned as a degree, but only one degree, better than a straight-out dole payment. Its weaknesses are manifold, but only one needs quoting; it regards only the present. No contribution is made to the future, to the great essential of so stimulating national activities that the employment available through normal channels will be increased and some contribution be made to the actual conquest of unemployment. The new plans contemplated by the board are only lightly sketched, doubtless because they are still in the tentative stage. Land development and back-blocks roads arc definitely mentioned, while there is a suggestion of collaboration with the Lands Department, the Native Department and the Forest Service, three departments which should have work of a definitely developmental value to suggest. The sTain Highways Board and the Public Works Department will also be consulted. All these should be the agencies for finding work likely to be of real value in a country of which the Unemployment Committee said in 1929 that its "principal business is the production of exportable farm products." In considering what is contemplated the nature of the activities to be attempted should be most emphasised ; the camp side of the scheme should not be regarded as a startling feature. Men have camped at the scene of their labours many times in New Zealand, and will do so again. Timber camps, railway construction camps, roadir.akers' camps, drainage workers' camps—these have been familiar adjuncts to pioneering work in the country for many years. Men have accepted camp life as a natural feature of the enterprises in which they have been engaged. If, therefore, it is proposed that single men now on the unemployed list are to be sent into camps, they will be

set on a path' trodden by many who have gone before to labours of a similar kind. It may be that they will receive the return for their work more in kind and less in cash than if they remained in the eity and were given relief employment of the type far too commonly provided in the past. Essentially they will be none the worse off, and both at present and in the future the community will be far better off if the new departure proposed is developed in a practical way. It is early yet to predict brilliant success for it, but it contains in its very conception the germs of success. For that reason, and for the promise that there will be a breakaway from the sterile methods the Minister himself condemns* so fully, the new policy announced demands a welcome.