UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21300, 2 April 1931, Page 10

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

Statements made by the Minister of Labour this week may be said to support the view that the Dominion has unfortunately reached the stage at which an arithmetical progression in respect to unemployment returns is on the verge of becoming a geometric progression. Various methods have been adopted by the Unemployment Board in an endeavour to stave off a crisis, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that the task which the Government has assigned to the Board is considerably in excess of the resources at the Board’s disposal. For this reason the Board has not accomplished all that was expected of it. It has at least, however, declined to resort to an expedient so harmful as the payment of unearned wages, even if it has been compelled to authorise unproductive works in order to provide employment, in which particular alone has it exposed itself to criticism in respect of its performances. It is true that the No. 5 scheme, which provides for the employment of men in proportion to the number of their dependents, has proved too costly, but that may be regarded as in some measure the result of numbers of persons who were really ineligible for such relief taking advantage of the opportunities provided under the scheme. The problem of relieving the distress consequent upon unemployment has undoubtedly proved more difficult of solution than was at first anticipated. The Unemployment Board, in commencing the No. 5 scheme, suggested that 30,000 men could be absorbed at a cost of £24,000 per week, but this calculation has been proved faulty inasmuch as the Board was called upon to expend no less a sum than £60,000 for the operation of this scheme for the week just past. For this reason it has been decided to suspend the scheme for a fortnight to allow of a complete overhaul of its provisions. In arriving at this decision the Board is influenced by the knowledge that the classification of eligible workers has been too loose, but it cannot be commended upon its suggestion that local bodies should carry the burden of unemployment relief for the period during which its own operations will be suspended. Most local authorities have already expended more than they can very well afford, and it is extremely doubtful whether any further funds can be found without the imposition of specific levies upon ratepayers. The position would appear to be that the Government has made less provision for unemployment relief than the gravity of the situation demands. If

the work cjf the Unemployment Board is to be carried on effectively the Government nliust, it would seem, make a further ea]l upon the taxpayer —a step which, disagreeable though it may be, must be regarded as preferable to the loading otj ratepayers with further burdens as at result of demands by local bodies. The alleviation of unemployment distress is a national problem, the solution o|f which can only be expected through tlie adoption of national measures. 13 le “downing of tools” in various peaces by relief workers, obviously under pressure from agitators, represents) a sorry commentary upon the that are being made by the Board, d'ith straitened finances, to grapple w ith a most difficult situation.