UNEMPLOYMENT CURE

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1935, Page 7

UNEMPLOYMENT CURE

ORGANISING MORE WORK

BOARD REVIEWS ITS POLICY.

OBJECT FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT.

RECENT SURVEY BY COMMITTEE.

(By Telegraph—Special Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night.

The registration of some thousands of men who under normal industrial conditions would be regarded as unemployable is again pointed to in the annual report of the Unemployment Board tabled in the House of r Representatives to-day. In the majority of cases, it is stated, unemployability arises not from any lack of willingness to work but from physical or mental disability. It is clear that were these men ruled as ineligible for unemployment relief they would immediately become a charge on the hospital boards. “The period covered by the report, the fifth issued by the board, has been one of steady but sure progress in general improvement in trade and business,” says the report. We have in New Zealand no surer indicator in improvement in economic conditions than the measure of revenue received from the emergency unemployment taxation and, despite the reduction of 2d in the £1 in the rate of this special tax, which affected revenue for the second half of last financial year, coupled with the introduction of a much wider range of exemptions, the annual revenue received durihg the year exceeded that of the previous year by £183,000. “Although there has been a corresponding, in some degree, substantial decrease in the total number requiring assistance directly or indirectly from the unemployment fund, the number in receipt of part-time relief (scheme 5 employment or sustenance), really representing those who are wholly unemployed, was .a slightly higher figure at the end of July last than for the corresponding period of last year. This the board ascribes in part to the substantial increase in the number of natives who have registered for relief while the wider application of sustenance payments without work being performed appears to have men to register who previously refrained from registering.

“During the year the board has pressed forward with its policy of organising for full-time employment in lieu of intermittent relief work or sustenance. The major difficulty encountered has been to find local bodies or Government departments willing to undertake work at the present time even with a subsidy slightly greater than the cost to the fund of paying unemployment relief. ' This difficulty, coupled with the general acceptance by the Government that employment is the only cure for unemployment, promoted the investigation carried on by the inter-departmental committee on which the board was represented by the deputy-chairman and the commissioner. “It was soon discovered that by assembling jobs classed as suitable for the employment of labour and not required in ordinary industry that few offered sufficient return to warrant any recommendation to the Government for the use of loan moneys to the full extent of the difference between the cost of relief and the cost of the job. To overcome this difficulty the board agreed in respect of works recommended by the committee to provide from the unemployment fund the difference between the economic value of the job and the total cost. In many instances this will involve providing the full labour cost from the unemployment fund. “It is being insisted that loan moneys be qsed to the full, extent that can be covered by the additional revenue created by prosecution of the work.”

LABOUR CRITICISM

“PERMANENT INSTITUTION.”

QUESTION OF BUILDING SUBSIDY.

Wellington, Last Night.

When the estimates were before the House of Representatives to-night, Mr. M. J. Sayage, Leader of the Opposition, said it looked to him as if the Unemployment Board was a permanent institution and that there was no hope for the unemployed. The board seemed to be growing and establishing itself as a permanent institution. , The salaries of board members amounted to £1534. Last year £1132 was voted and . £1287 expended. Mr. Langstone said he was satisfied the unemployment fund could be administered in a better way. He did not think the board had done a single thing to help the unemployed. The policy of the board had been to try to reduce wages.

He was satisfied that if the £4,500,000 collected from taxation and levies were handed to the Public Works Department it could do all-the work that Was necessary. The board had not a hope of solving the unemployment problem in the way it was going about it. The differentiation of payment was a sure way to cause trouble. He was. certain there was no need for the problem as it existed to-day. Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) asked if the board intended to continue its building subsidy policy to enable a firm like Boots to build a number of shops to oust family businesses. Mr. Smith: No.

Mr. Lee: I am pleased to have the Minister’s assurance that it is not. Intended to use the fund to create a chain of Boots chemists stores throughout New Zealand.

Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames) said he believed much good had been done in the way of subsidise ing the building of houses and urged that the unemployed should be placed in profitable employment. Mr. Semple referred to the increase in l the vote, the total of which this year was £189,440, compared with £160,789 voted last year and £138,999 expended. Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) said the criticism directed at the officers of the board was not fair. It was the policy of the Government that should be criticised. Unemployment could be solved only by recognising that machines were taking the place of employees, and by reducing hours and making payment against the profit of the machine. Mr. P. Webb (Labour, Buller) made a plea for the youth of the country. He said if boys and girls did not develop jnto the men and women members would wish them to develop into, the responsibility would rest on the Government side of the House.