UNEMPLOYMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20863, 20 October 1937, Page 10

UNEMPLOYMENT

PRESENT POSITION MINISTERIAL STATEMENT By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, October 19 Statements appearing recently in newspapers and speeches made by Opposition Members of Parliament on the extent of unemployment in New Zeaand make it necessary for the publication of some further facts in connection with the unemployment returns, stated the Hon. Mr Armstrong, Minister of Labour, in a statement just released. The monthly returns published by the Labour Department from time to time are being misinterpreted in an attempt to prove: (1) That having regard to theimprovement in the Dominion’s income due to higher prices in our exportable products, the reduction in unemployment has not been as great as it should have been; (2) That by comparison with other countries the increase in employment has not been satisfactory; (3) That any substantial reduction should have made a reduction in unemployment tax possible. It has also been suggested that as our economic conditions are somewhat on a par with those of 1929, unemployment should now have been removed completely, seeing that little or none existed before the slump period. In the first place it is necessary to clear up the complete misunderstanding which is revealed in this last assertion. It is quite inaccurate to say that in the pre-crisis years there was little or no unemployment in New

Zealand. New Zealand economically involves a larger proportion of seasonal employment in contrast to steady fulltime employment than is probably the case in any other known country, at least within the British Empire. As a result, considerable unemployment of the normal short-dated character has been evident for very many years in the Dominion. Figures in 1916 Prior to the enactment of the unemployment legislation in 1930, under which provision for a more exact record of unemployment was made for the first time in this country, the only complete means by which the extent of unemployment could be revealed was in the census returns. The census figures show that in 1896 there were 15,000 unemployed wage-earners in New Zealand on the night the census was taken. In 1916, the corresponding figure was 6.000, the reason for this comparatively low figure being the exceptional conditions associated with the war. In 1926, in which year there was a building boom, there being that year a record for building expenditure in New Zealand, the census showed that there were 10,700 male wage-earners out of employment at the date of the census. Nevertheless, unemployment was not at that time considered a very serious factor in the country's economy, but two years later still, at the height of New Zealand’s prosperity, the problem had grown to such serious dimensions as to cause the then Government to appoint a committee of inquiry, the report of which resulted in the present unemployment legislation.

There was no census in 1931, when the depression had really commenced. Had there been, it would have been more easily possible to demonstrate the improvement to-day as against the depression period. It is with the figures indicating normal unemployment that our existing unemployment statistics must be compared if a proper comparison showing improvement or otherwise is to be made. Details in this statement indicate that during the period covered by these census returns, the average number of unemployed wage-earners in the country was 4 i per cent. To-day there are 460.000 males between the ages 'of 20 and 65 who are liable for payment of the levy. At least 250.000 of these are wage-earners.

It may be safely stated then, that on the basis of 4A per cent of always existent unemployment, at least 11,000 under the existing economic system would be normally without work whether the unemployment legislation was on the Statute Book or not. Reverting to the published monthly return, there are other factors tending to inflate the figures. The return covers not merely the unemployed, but includes, for instance, gold prospectors who are grub-staked out of the Employment Promotion Fund whilst working on their own claims. In this country there has always been a number of men following this occuption. It can therefore be said that they are in normal employment. Latest Figures The latest return, set out hereunder, taken as at 25th September, includes 11,397 men working in full-time employment under Award conditions, many of whom are completely unaware of their inclusion in returns of unemployment. The return also includes old men over pension age who are unable to follow their usual occupation and are yet not qualified to receive the old-age pension. It includes also many others who through physical or mental disabilities, are unfit to take any normal employment. Thousan ’s in this latter category are not properly classified as unemployed, and if and when the National Health and Superannuation Scheme is introduced, would be provided for under that heading. In the absence of this scheme, however, some provision had to be made for them, and this was provided last year by amending the unemployment legislation. The amendment passed last session allows me to provide assistance in accordance with the other provisions in the Act to persons out of employment, or otherwise in need of assistance.

How many there are on the Employment Fund because they need assistance for reasons other than unemployment I have indicated later on in this statement, and if their number were deducted from the unemployment figures as might reasonably be done, it would be seen at once that very much greater inroads have been made on the unemployment problem than revealed by the statistics as now published. With this explanation I desire to set out the figures for August and September, indicating in greater detail how the figures are compiled. As the unemployment figures for last August were published and for Septem-

ber would be published, they were:—

Totals 37,316 36,450 If the totals of these two columns are taken, the decrease is shown to be 866, but if the figures for those on fulltime employment are ignored in each column and only those on sustenance or without regular full-time employment taken into account, the September figures show a reduction of 2,270 between the period of the August and the September figures. Complaint is continually made about the number of men on sustenance, but it must be pointed out that a great majority of those remaining on sustenance are more or less physically unfit for ordinary employment, and draw benefit from the Fund only because in the absence of other adequate forms of relief I have exercised the extended powers alluded to above. How greatly the unemployment figures would be diminished if these men were excluded is shown by the following facts:— Sustenance Total The September sustenance total is 18,110 and this figure includes 2895 single men and 5604 married men who were quite unable at the date of the return to undertake any normal work; 181 single men and 373 married men, according to the reports of our District Officers, were only temporarily incapacitated through sickness, but 2714 single men and 5231 married men of the above totals are reported as being more or less continually unable to accept employment in either normal or light work. It is seen, therefore, that of the sustenance total of 18,110, some 8,499 men were actually unemployable at the date of the return. The law, as it stands, has given me power to exclude them from relief or to accept them as being in necessitous circumstances. What I have had to decide is whether I would exclude them even though they were caused distinct hardship or whether I would allow the unemployment figures to greatly exceed what would be the figure if the real unemployment problem were actually measured. I would mention also in connection with the Scheme 5 figures that the scheme to-day has been completely transformed since this Government assumed office. It is intermittent employment, but only in this respect is it the same. scheme as that which was administered before the election. Under this scheme to-day the worker is employed at standard award rates for the time he works. The weekly amount that he may earn has been increased, and in a number of cases the local authorities employing the men are supplementing the wages over and above that allowed from the Employment Fund. It is disclosed from the centres that many of these men are earning from relief, plus supplementary wages paid by the employing authorities or from private employment, up to the basic wage. It must be remembered then that many of the Scheme 5 workers to-day are in no worse position than casual workers in ordinary industry, where their wages are subject to deduction through wet weather and other causes. Having thus explained the figures, I propose to set out the September return as it should appear in order that it may be really comparable with returns published in other countries: AS AT SEPTEMBER 28 Registered, but not on relief .. 2,229 On sustenance waiting placement 9.661 On Scheme 5 relief 4,714 Total 16,604 On sustenance, totally unfit for employment for health or other reasons, but being afforded relief from the Employment Fund 8,499 The above total, which is a very detailed and absolutely correct statement of the employment position, demonstrates beyond question that unemployment to-day is not as widespread or prevalent as is being imputed, and is now, in fact, no little different in extent from what was disclosed as being normal by the Census returns in the years mentioned.

hi) 5 a < <D £ SZ 05 co Registered but not eligible or not placed on relief 2.371 2,229 Receiving rationed relief work under No. 5 scheme 4.979 4,714 Receiving sustenance without work 19,973 18.110 Receiving full-time employment wholly or partly paid from the Employment Promotion Fund 9.993 11,397