Mr Armstrong On Unemployment

Southland Times, Issue 23335, 20 October 1937, Page 4

Mr Armstrong On Unemployment

We print this morning a statement by the Minister of Employment (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) in reply to what he describes as “misinterpretations” of the unemployment returns by the newspapers and members of the Opposition. The Minister appar-

ently does not agree that the rate of absorption of the unemployed over the last 18 months has not been satisfactory, which makes the strenuous efforts of his colleagues to improve the situation — while he was abroad —seem rather strange. But if Mr Armstrong has evidence to support his contention he has still not disclosed it. It is quite clear that no exact comparisons can be made between the levels of unemployment in this and other countries, for there are necessarily variations in the methods of compiling unemployment statistics. To say, as the Minister has, that the New Zealand returns should appear in such-and-such a form in order to be “really comparable” with returns published in all other countries, is plainly ridiculous. But it is possible to make general comparisons from the existing figures between the extent of unemployment in New Zealand and in various States of Australia, for instance; and these comparisons are none of them favourable to this country. Between January and July of this year the percentage of wage-earners unemployed in New South Wales fell from 9.2 to 6.2—a decline of 30 per cent., in spite of the winter months. In New Zealand there was the same number of registered unemployed in July as there had been in January. Figures issued recently by the Australian Commonwealth Statistician show that unemployment among members of trade unions is at its lowest level since 1929. Here, again, no exact comparison can be made, but the number of registered unemployed in New Zealand today is so vastly greater than it was in 1929 that it is impossible to claim that anything like the same situation exists here. The Minister says that the New Zealand official figures for 1929 were not complete and therefore do not form a proper basis for comparison; but he would find it hard to show that there was in 1929 anything approaching the present number of unemployed—37,ooo. Moreover, quite apart from overseas comparisons, it can be shown by very simple arithmetic that the proportion of unemployed who have been reabsorbed into private industry as distinct from public works and other State activities, is disturbingly small. The huge contemplated expenditure on public works —£17,000,000 in the current year—is in itself a confession of the Government’s failure in unemployment. Economists have shown that there is a good case to be made for heavy spending on public works in a period of depression, to relieve unemployment and stimulate industry; but Labour is setting up new records in public works expenditure at the height of prosperity—mainly because it has itself to provide the employment which, had the tide of recovery been allowed to flow through the country under more favourable conditions, would have been provided by private industry. The day after he took office as Prime Minister Mr Savage said: “Instead of looking for relief works we are going to put men into their places in primary and secondary industries.” From that day to this the roll of registered unemployed has declined by 20,000. How many of those 20,000 are on public works, how many have been added to the staffs of State departments, and how many have been “put into their places in primary and secondary industries”? That is the main point at issue, and the Minister completely ignores it.