RELIEF WORKERS’ CAMPS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21977, 12 June 1933, Page 6

RELIEF WORKERS’ CAMPS

According to much of the criticism concerning it in some quarters, the idea that relief work should be provided for married men in camps is about as iniquitous a proposition as was ever propounded. At a conference of representatives of various organisations in Christchurch last week to discuss the question one delegate declared that the unemployed would go to any lengths to oppose camps. Another offered the suggestion that it might be possible to demonstrate to a disconcerted Government that it was defying public opinion in this matter. The conference discussed the question of compulsion in regard to the acceptance of work in the camps without

being sure whether compulsion was being exerted or not, and evidently desired something more definite on that point than the statement of the Mayor of Christchurch that he had the Minister’s assurance that no penalty for non-acceptance would be imposed in the meantime. Therefore it was decided to make fresh representations to the Minister on the subject. On Saturday intimation was received from the official in charge of the Labour Office in Christchurch to the effect that in relation to the camp scheme the rules of the Unemployment Board would be applied, and that married men unwilling to go into camp would be regarded as voluntarily unemployed. This is, however, hardly consistent with the statement made by the Minister of Employment a few days ago that he appreciated the fact that it would be a real hardship to many relief workers to undertake camp life, and there was no intention to attempt to force such men to do so if their circumstances were considered to warrant their remaining at home. This would imply that the cases of those who object to taking relief woi'k in the camps will receive consideration on their merits. That may be regarded as a fair proposal, viewed in conjunction with the Minister’s not unreasonable statement that there were many unemployed to whom this wAk would not represent any hardship, while on the other hand it was very difficult for the Unemployment Board to justify the granting of relief to able-bodied men who demanded that they should remain at partly useless work in the cities at a time when insufficient men were available for useful and productive works. Sympathy must be extended the married man who sees no other prospect before him than that of having to leave his home to go to a relief camp. Nothing is gained, however, by exaggeration of the extent to which this must involve hardship or social implications. Many members of the community accept the necessity of separation from their homes in the course of their employment as a matter of course, and their wives and families do not find the situation intolerable. No doubt the position really resolves itself, so far as the unemployed are concerned, into a question of the wages to be earned. The motion adopted by the Christchurch conference affirmed, indeed, that with sufficient inducement there would be no difficulty in filling the camps on a voluntary basis. This seems rather to dispose of the hardship argument. What is desirable is that the men concerned should have a definite assurance that in going to the country they will receive a weekly wage that will be reasonably adequate to meet their circumstances. Representations respecting the improvement of the camps are entitled to consideration, but it is not to be forgotten that camps are apt to he what the occupants themselves make them.