THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1934 A SUSTENANCE SCHEME

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21698, 13 January 1934, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1934 A SUSTENANCE SCHEME

The decision of the Unemployment Board to grant sustenance without work, to elderly men and men of any age unable through physical disability to perform the class of work offering, is an evidently sincere effort to meet a need. As such it is worth trying, in the two centres most representative of the need. The increasing difficulty of providing work for men capable of light tasks only, especially men in advancing years, has necessitated a review of the position. Circumstances arising from the widespread economic stress have hampered seriously the efforts of these men to find work for themselves and have equally hindered the endeavours of the Unemployment Board to find work on their behalf. An. inevitable effect has been the embarrassment of the general scheme of relief, and the position should become appreciably defined by removing thus, as far as possible, a number of applicants for relief work that is difficult to provide. Although the scheme is on a voluntary basis and therefore dependent on the readiness of application by those it is intended to aid. it would be premature to assume that it will not be welcomed by them. That cannot be known until the experiment has been given time to prove itself. As some payments of the kind have already been made to men not capable of labour on ordinary relief works, it should not be long before sufficient facts for judgment are available. Meanwhile it is well to remember, in all thought about the scheme, that the original idea of providing work rather than sustenance without work has not been summarily abandoned as a general principle, and that this restricted departure, made to meet cases of hardship resulting from a rigidly absolute enforcement of the principle, is designed to assist its operation in the main field of endeavour, not to break it down. The interests of the unemployed are intended to be served, together with the 'interests of the general community called upon in this time of economic dislocation to share the burden of hardship. If such a scheme can enable a number of unfortunate individuals to do better for themselves, as well as clear the way somewhat for the Unemployment Board's heavy task, benefit should accrue all round.

From the point of view of all possible applicants for sustenance under the scheme, it cannot be doubted that many of those intended to be j benefited have felt keenly their incapacity, whatever its cause, for the only kind of work available to them. To feel that they could not render it adequately has made relief pay scarcely distinguishable from charity. Elderly men without strength and training for manual labour of a severe sort, and others suffering from physical disability, have been compelled by circumstances to take what offered in this way and havo tried to do their best, knowing all too well that this was less than in ordinary times would entitle them to such employment. That has been unhappily demeaning—a human aspect of the position not pleasant for anyone to contemplate. Under the sustenance scheme,, these men will be assured of considerable direct help, while free to undertake light work of their own seeking to enable them to carry on and do something to establish themselves. It is necessary, of course, that this freedom should not be abused, in the interests of the whole system of unemployment relief, but, as nothing vexatiously restrictive is to be done in the matter of such private earnings, they can accept sustenance as a grant in aid of honourable personal effort. It is not quite fair to the scheme to say, as Mr. Savage does, that the Unemployment Board denies these men the opportunity of work and asks them "to accept less and do nothing." True, the rates of sustenance payment under the scheme are not generally equal to pay for relief work, but a reasonable administration of the scheme in reference to private earnings can do much to falsify the prophecy of its failure to achieve a good purpose. Had there been an insistence that the recipients should live solely on grants under the scheme, impulsive condemnation would have been warranted. As it is announced and explained, the scheme merits sober discussion and time to prove itself. From the national point of view, the conditions attaching to the assistance, given to help particular classes of men to help themselves, have sufficient justification to make them worth imposing. Sustenance without conditions of any kind —save

in circumstances altogether outside the unemployment problem as now faced by almost all civilised countries would be essentially injudicious as a national policy; If there be no capacity for work, and no opportunity for it, then sustenance becomes an inescapable duty devolving on the general community up to the limit of its resources. This scheme does not deal with such a position, which is customarily dealt with by charitable aid in the absolute sense of the term. Instead, it is introduced to help those with some capacity for some work, but without adequate opportunity for the sort of work of which they are capable, which is a very different position. Thoy can have sustenance in lieu of the work that is not offering, and cannot very well be offered, under any public scheme of relief, no matter how diversified, and are encouraged to seek it in private avenues, where it is naturally and conveniently found. None can safely predict the detailed outcome of the scheme. Yet that it is propounded with an honest desire to overcome a difficulty should be acknowledged. If it does not succeed, it can be withdrawn ; and as its voluntary basis is definite any criticism alleging hardship is scarcely applicable. Even a brief trial may prove it to go some distance toward meeting a difficulty that certainly exists —to be overcome.