The Daily News THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1933. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1933, Page 4

The Daily News

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1933. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH, Currie Street. STRATFORD, Broadway. HAWERA, High Street.

For some time there have been attacks levelled by certain sections of the Labour movement at the personnel as well as the policy of the Unemployment Board. The vice-chairman, Mr. J. S. Jessep, has been the member of the board generally singled out for attack, but this is probably due to the fact that his position has made him the spokesman of the board whether its decisions have been popular or otherwise. The existing appointments of Mr. Jessep and his colleagues, Messrs. W. Bromley and P. R. Climie expire this month, though the acting-Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates) made it. clear to a deputation of Labour officials that the board members would in all probability be reappointed. The tone adopted by the deputation will convince many people that its object was not so much an alteration in the policy of the board as a change in its personnel. The great majority of taxpayers, however, are likely to endorse the defence of the board made by Mr. Coates, and to regret exceedingly that official Labour had so little to- offer that was constructive. The board is not perfect, but it has done its best to afford as much relief as the funds provided by a very oner'ous tax will permit, and its efforts have enabled the Ministry to claim with some justice that the unemployment problem has been more resolutely tackled in New Zealand than in any other country. The board has lived within its means, and that, after all, is one of the tests of sound administration. Labour’s alternative to the limitations imposed by the prudent course adopted by the board is the old proposal of borrowing largely, spending lavishly, and leaving someone else to foot the bill. Leaving aside such extreme observations as one made by the president of the Alliance of Labour, Mr. A. Cook, that the Unemployment Board’s policy was ‘‘leading to a revolution,” there was ample justification for Mr. Coates’ regret that many Labour leaders had apparently learnt nothing from the experience of the past two years, or modified in any way their suggestions for relieving the situation. To refuse with petulance any co-operation with the authorities because their own policy is not agreed with is not the action of those who have the welfare of the unemployed really at heart. There is room within the limitations of the finance granted to the Unemployment Board for much assistance from those who claim to be the leaders of the Labour movement. As Mr. Coates pointed out, they could do a good deal to prevent hardship by acquainting the authorities of cases in which privation was acute. There would be no vote-catching or limelight about such efforts, but, to their everlasting credit, they are being made by many Labour officials who ask neither praise nor publicity for their assistance

to those in need. The Labour alternative, to borrow £15,000,000 by a “forced loan,” spend it upon public works and land settlement, with all workers receiving- award rates of wages, might with good luck meet the position for a year or a year and a half. That is, of course, assuming the money were made available by investors. When the loan money was exhausted most of the funds provided by the Unemployment Tax would have to be hypothecated to redeem the loan, there would be -only a small amount left for the relief of unemployment, and the plight of the unemployed would be more tragic than ever. It is serious enough now. There is no room for the intrusion of party politics in the efforts to minimise privation and maintain the self-respect of relief workers. Speaking broadly, the unemployed have “played the game.” They expect their would-be advocates to do likewise, and to use to the full the opportunities for easing hardships which exist, instead of refusing to do so unless some more grandiose but quite impracticable methods are adopted.