UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22391, 12 October 1934, Page 8

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

On the face of things the differentiation between the rates of pay for relief workers in urban and rural districts respectively may appear so considerable as to represent an anomaly furnishing ground for the criticism of the Unemployment Board by Mr Anscll in the House of Representatives. But a little consideration should show that there is method in the board’s discrimination, and a good deal of force in the Minister’s reply in defence of its policy. Clearly the board would be acting in accordance with a wrong conception of its function if it paid relief wages such as would deter men from looking for or applying for work, or, as the Minister put it, such as would divert men from ordinary employment to relief work. The conditions differ in town and country. In the city the relief worker may not have the same opportunity of finding employment as is afforded in the rural districts. There is a demand for farm labour which in many eases goes unsatisfied. Perhaps, in the present circumstances of most farmers, the wages that are offered are not very attractive, but at least they should be equal to, or better than, the relief work rates in country districts, and in addition the worker would be kept. The assumption is that even the relief pay that rules in rural districts has its effect in keeping men from seeking industrial employment, and that, if the scale of pay were increased, the difficulty that is experienced in procuring farm labour would become greater still. The impression is created that in some instances men who are depending on relief pay, at which, of course, they grumble on the score of its paucity, are just a little too content to remain on relief work rather than seek other employment. It would be unfortunate if industry were to suffer through such a cause. Above all things, it must be undesirable that * unemployment, or relief work, should be exalted to the status of an industry, yet there seems to be a tendency in that direction against which the country must guard itself. Certainly there are those in receipt of relief pay who are not concerned to seek private employment because, with this pay and with assistance from organisations that operate in the interests of the unemployed, they get along with no great effort;- in a way which apparently satisfies them. The Unemployment Board which is responsible to the community at larg% cannot have any sympathy with such an attitude. It has to administer its funds not only for relief, but with a view to thq reinstatement of the unemployed in industry. Were it to pay wages sufficiently high to discourage men from seeking employment it would be discounting its own prospects of success in reducing unemployment. Differentiation between rates of relief pay in town and country is therefore not in thp circumstances illogical. The Unemployment Board is discharging a difficult and unenviable task, and is a target for all sorts of criticism. A little moi’e recognition on occasion of how much it is doing would not be out of place. In the House of Representatives yesterday certain members of the Opposition even dragged in the impending visit of the Duke of Gloucester -as a pretext for attacking the Government in relation to the position of the unemployed. One of them, Mr Howard,

went so far as to say that it would not be surprising if, when the Duke came, “ the unemployed did something drastic.” His suggestion was as little creditable to him as a member of Parliament as it is to him as chairman of a local’ body which is making provision for expenditure on its own account to welcome the Duke in a befitting manner.