THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1934 UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21876, 11 August 1934, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1934 UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM

Between the unemployment problem of the depressed areas of Britain and that of New Zealand there is nothing comparable in the matter of industrial conditions, but, nevertheless, there are similarities in social aspects which ought to be examined carefully, not only by those responsible for relief administration in the Dominion, but also by the many who deliver criticism and offer advice. It is easy to say that the conditions prevailing in many of the industrial centres of the North of England are a disgrace to Great Britain. This has been said many times. Investigators have found in towns which formerly contributed vast national wealth in the form of coal, of ships, of the products of the" steel and pottery industries, appalling economic conditions, all due largely to the contraction of world trade. Worse, however, are the social conditions which result. Craftsmen, through long idleness, often possess what might be called cancer of the spirit. Youths who never have been employed are reaching manhood and parenthood without the benefit of habitual work. They have lost what is still to be regarded as essential discipline. But with all the outbursts of indignation there has not yet been presented any comprehensive constructive plan for these depressed areas. All that can be accomplished is by piecemeal effort. So far the same can truthfully be said of the New Zealand unemployment problem. Considered generally the bulk of relief activities in the Dominion must be classed as palliatives. There has been land development, road improvement and so on, all of which has added to the productive value of the country, but only from the point of view of primary production. Most of the No. 5 schemes of the cities have, at the best, added only to civic amenities. Many of them have been a poor excuse for not paying out relief in the form of sustenance. Even the building assistance scheme, widely spread though its benefits have been, has not been free from the most undesirable feature of rural development relief —the giving of personal benefit to the participating employer. This aspect of the problem has been criticised by Mr. D. G. Sullivan, M.P. He refers particularly to the employment of relief money in the performance of local body works. But his contention has wide application and, although it must be admitted that it is difficult to stimulate employment except through the assistance of subsidies which mean personal gain, direct or indirect, for individuals, it will be generally conceded that he has justice and equity on his side. He carries his case too far, of course, when he argues that all local body schemes should be suspended to enable the true unemployment position to be gauged, and those who urge that standard rates of pay should be provided from the Unemployment Fund are allowing their heart to run away with their head. There is no magic available in the matter of finance, as well the Labour Party understands. It knows that had it been in power its aims could not possibly have been achieved, and most of the unemployed know that also. Yet Mr. Sullivan's case is worthy of the most careful study by his political opponents. It is a self-evident fact that if local bodies use relief money fpr the carrying out of what is normal work, there will never be an end of the problem, so far as they are concerned. The country is impoverished and rating levies are limited by the ability of the property owners to pay, but it should be a fixed principle that unemployment subsidies must not be allotted for what is normal work. It would be better far actually to reduce expenditure than io follow a policy that will help to prolong the evil.

This would immediately have the effect of expanding the allocation for sustenance without work. There was wisdom in Mr. Forbes' original intention that there should be no reliel without work. In recent months it has been found that to follow that principle has virtually been impossible and the probability is that in the next six months the expansion of sustenance payments will aggravate an aspect of the problem which the Labour Party should not in honour decline to see. It is revealed in the spirit of resistance found in many groups of the unemployed, particularly those which have easy opportunity for organisation and by political pressure readily obtain support from well-wishers who may take a more shallow view than they realise. This resistance is really non-co-opera-tion. It is largely political in origin, but probably inevitable. With that spirit there should be no compromise under any circumstances. The revelations which followed the application of the means test in Britain conclusively demonstrate the importance of keeping relief to a standard that does not equal the reward of individual effort. At all coßts the policy must keep clearly in the forefront the need

for stimulating individual initiative. Assuming that this will be done there remains, however, the sense of what is almost defeatism in regard to the problem. There are plans for creating employment by establishing new industries, but these will not solve the problem. The Government has been concerned mainly with palliatives. The critics of its policy have been mainly concerned with criticism. Constructive ideas have been lacking. There has not been much evidence of the necessary spirit of co-operation between the administrators and their critics. With an election due in the not far distant future it may be too much to expect that the unemployed and the relief schemes will not continue to provide political ammunition, but surely it is more than time that the best brains of all parties should join in a deep study of the problem, first enunciating principles and then endeavouring to build upon them. Emotionalism has had too free a rein. Practical effort will best serve the unemployed in the long run.