SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20274, 7 April 1934, Page 21

SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Unemployment Camps Near Sydney. CAVE AND SHACK HOMES. (Special to the " Star.”) SYDNEY, March 28. As the first signs of recovery from the depression are manifesting themselves, the municipal authorities in the city and suburbs are naturally trying to set their affairs in order both financially and in regard to the social life of the community. Some of the gravest questions that they have to face are provided by the unemployed camps that have sprung up in the suburban areas. * Domain Cleared. When the Stevens Government came into office nearly two years ago one of its first steps was to get the Domain cleared of the large number of unemployed who were living there in caves and “shacks” because they could not find shelter elsewhere. But this only meant that the overflow of the city’s population found its way to other places of refuge and increased the numbers of “ campers ** who had already established themselves at many eligible spots in the outskirts of Sydney. In the vicinity of Botany Bay or on the more remote fringes of the harbour, where dry sand and sheltering rock combine to make life tolerable, there have grown up “ unemployed camps,” which are now so large that they are becoming a cause of serious disquiet to the local authorities. At Long Bay, near Botany, there ate sixty families living under more or less flimsy and temporary shelter; at Happy Valley, near La Perouse, there are about 150 dwellings, mostly galvanised iron and canvas; between La Perouse and the Bunnerong powerhouse there are hundreds of huts scattered along the sandhills; at the head of Botany Bay. where Brighton-le-Sands and Rochdale front the beautiful sweep of Lady Robinson’s Beach, there are at least 150 “ homes ”; at Clontarf, in the Manly Municipality, there are about fifty huts close to Middle Harbour. The list might easily be extended, but this is enough to indicate that the “ unemployed camps ” are numerous and extensive. Tears in Residence. Of course, the inhabitants for the most part have been living solely On the dole and family allowance; and some families have been in residence three or four years. They receive a good deal of consideration from their more fortunate neighbours. The Rochdale people help the campers in "Cook’s Park with gilts of fruit and vegetables and firewood, and the local authority looks after sanitation and water supply. At La Perouse a large can of milk is supplied by train every day to the campers by one of the city companies. Of course, there is no rent to pay, there are no rates or taxes, no electric light bill, and the life, without these material worries, is free and healthy. At Happy Valley “ clothes do not matter; nobody wears boots,” the beaches are close, with the ocean just beyond. If it were not for “ the curse of idleness ” the men and women might be as happy as the troops of . children.. Even as it is, they have worked hard' to improve their little holdings, and many gardens testify to their pride In these humble homes. Of course, there is another point of view to be considered. These camps are on Crown land or municipal property, and they are not encroaching on private holdings. But it is only natural that the taxpayers and ratepayers in the vicinity, being forced to contribute to. the maintenance of “ peace, order and good government,” look rather askance on the unemployment camps and resent the deteriorating effects that such “ mushroom growths ” must produce on property values and on the social reputation of their district.

The “ Sydney Morning Herald " has pronounced strongly against the policy which has allowed “ insanitary slums to take permanent root in populous residential suburbs.” It urges that “ families should not be allowed to become habituated to such domestic conditions,” and it warns us of the tendency for such camps to become ** centres of attraction for nomads and ne’er-do-wells.*’ Needless to say, this last suggestion aroused a great deal of public resentment; for the conduct and character of most of the “ campers ” are uniformly good. Though the “ Sunday Morning Herald’s ” manner of stating its case was. as usual, needlessly rigorous and dictatorial, there is a great deal of truth in its contentions, and most of those responsible for the administration of local affairs have come to the conclusion that they cannot shut their eyes to this state of affairs much longer. Matters were brought to a climax late last year by the decision of the Manly Council that the “ campers ” at Clontarf must evacuate their holdings within a stated period. About the same time the Rochdale Council notified the large numbers of campers in Cook’s Park that they must prepare to withdraw. The many hundreds of helpless people concerned naturally made strong protests, which had, at least, the effect of compelling the Government to pay some attention to this very serious problem. So far the local authorities have not proceeded to extremes, and much depends upon the course that Mr Stevens decides to follow. Objection to Removal. The Premier has suggested, rather vaguely, that it might be possible to group all the “ unemployed camps ” together on State land somewhere in the vicinity of National Park. But the people already living in these localities would need to be consulted. The “ campers ” themsleves object strongly to removal from the little homes that they have built up—many of with great labour—during the past three or four years; and the whole outlook at present is dubious in the extreme. The scope of the problem really extends far beyond the limits of the suburban camps. In the northern coal district hundreds of people are living in destitution without the ability to pay rent or rates of any kind, and Mr Hawkins, as Minister in Charge of Sustenance. has just received a deputation from the South Coast assuring him that in their district “ 2000 persons are living in the bush under conditions worse than those of the blacks.” It is becoming clearly evident that the intervention of the Government cannot be delayed longer, and, much as Mr Stevens and his colleagues may disapprove of “ State interference ’* in such matters, they will need to make greater efforts on behalf of the unem ployed.