THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1935. UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22718, 2 November 1935, Page 12

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1935. UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

In Masterton a fortnight ago the leader of the Democrat Party made the comment, with reference to' criticism of his party's policy which had appeared in our leading columns, that "in Dunedin one might hope for fairness, but should be certain of accuracy." We are inclined to ask Mr Hislop and those who are enlisted under his colours in this election campaign whether it has ever occurred to them that example is still to be accounted, better than precept. We refer to estimates of the number of unemployed in the Dominion persistently used by Mr Hislop and copied with equal persistence by Democrat candidates. For instance, Captain Fraser, speaking at Outram a few nights ago, made the statement that New Zealand to-day had 10,000 more unemployed than when the present Government took office in 1931, the total now standing at 58,225. This figure, it can be said at once, is grossly inaccurate. In the light of the most recent information available it overstates the number of unemployed at the present time by 16,000. The presumption is that neither the Democrat leader nor his supporters go to official sources for their information—an extraordinary procedure for Parliamentary candidates so righteously concerned to find accuracy in others. Three days ago the Minister of Employment issued a statement setting out that the number of unemployed as at the end of September was 42,200. On the same date, according to Mr Smith, financial assistance was being afforded to industry conditional on standard full-time employment being given to 18,144 men who, without the stimulus of the subsidy, would in all probability have been dependent on relief. It was further explained by the Minister that that figure did not include men engaged in the various allied trades comprising the building industry, which also had the assistance of the subsidy. September marks the peak of unemployment each year in New Zealand, an improving tendency being noted in the succeeding six months. Perhaps Captain Fraser or Mr Hislop will explain how they account for an increase of 16,000 in a month which has hitherto invariably shown a decline from the peak figure. For their enlightenment we would refer them to the latest report of the Unemployment Board—a document they have obviously not taken occasion to study—for an explanation of the new and more exact method, now in use, of computing the numbers of men correctly described as unemployed. One paragraph should make the true position clear:

The Board desires to draw attention to the fact that the true unemployment position is more properly depicted by the number of unemployed representing men in receipt of parttime relief work, or on sustenance, approximating 38,000. This is thp number recorded at the beginning of August. 1934, and also in July, 1935, although a considerable decrease was recorded during the summer months, when the figure dropped below 32,000 in February, 1935. By this time it has become fixed in the minds of the general public that New Zealand has

between 50,000 and 60,000 "unemployed," whereas the true figure, excluding full-time workers (those on subsidised employment at standard rates) should be between 30,000 and 40,000. In the past, also, it has been the practice to refer to the numbers of " registered unemployed." This term, while no doubt of certain value for statistical purposes, is really a misnomer in that nearly 8000 men at present registered as unemployed, and in receipt of some form of unemployment relief, are really engaged full time at standard rates of pay. Such men are retained on the register simply for purposes of convenience in effecting payment of subsidy.

It will be seen from the foregoing how easy it is for politicians whose one desire is to discredit the Government to ignore the reality of declining unemployment. To admit the truth would be to admit the effectiveness of the measures that have been taken to bring about the reabsorption of men into industry, or into other occupations involving payment at standard rates. Captain Eraser's reference to the conditions which obtained when the present Government took office four years ago is equally unfair, in that he deliberately names the worst year of the crisis period for the purposes of his comparison. A more generous critic would have used the figures for 1932, or even 1933. But that presumably would have defeated the candidate's aim, though it might reasonably be expected to satisfy his leader's passion for " accuracy."