THE WAIPA POST. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. TUESDAY, 29TH MAY, 1934. TIME TO CALL A HALT.

Waipa Post, Volume 48, Issue 3472, 29 May 1934, Page 4

THE WAIPA POST. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. TUESDAY, 29TH MAY, 1934. TIME TO CALL A HALT.

PLAINLY there are rumblings of discontent amongst the unemployed in this country to-day. Criticism of the Government is being mainly directed to the hardships suffered by those who are workless, and notably to “ economies ” in unemployed benefits. This is not to be wondered at. The sufferings of the unfortunate class compelled to face the problem of living on still more straitened means must arouse the sympathy of every man and woman in the country. The plea for consideration in these times makes a particularly striking appeal, and it is the easiest thing imaginable to secure an audience when pointing to real or imaginary misdeeds of the Government in its treatment of the unemployed. In more than one locality to-day the clamant cry is raised against the Government, though it is evident that the Unemployment Boaxd would attempt the impossible were it to strive to appease every claim made. Not so many weeks ago the Municipal Conference roundly condemned the basis of allocation. Latterly there has been an outcry against the camps, and the growing discontent cannot go unheeded. It is certain that the basis of allocation is difficult to understand. Between city and country town there is a contrast which, at. first glance, seems anomalous. As was revealed in Te Awamutu the other day, men drawn from different localities but working on the same job were sehedruled to receive different rates of pay. Seemingly the Board has taken the cost of living statistics into the reckoning and is apportioning the funds at its command with a due regard to the spending power of the money. Theoretically that may be sound, but in practice it provides a result which compels comparisons to be drawn and arouses discontent in the mind of the worker who is called Upon to do precisely the same work for less money. Another much-stated grievance is that unemployment funds have been paid away to large financial concerns to aid them in the erection of new buildings; also, the camps are loudly condemned. A very long story could be told in recital of the misdeeds of the Government in the discharge of its responsibilities to the unemployed.

Yet, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the Government is as much sinned against as sinning. In Palmerston North last week —-and the agitation is being fanned throughout the Manawatu district several hundred men followed their leaders in an open demonstration of hostility to the Government. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Employment, and Mr Bromley, one of the members of the Board, were noisily approached with what the men called “ demands.” It was demanded that full standard rates of pay should be paid, and, moreover, that men who had that day absented themselves from work in order to demonstrate should be paid. In his reply the Minister explained, amidst much interjection, that he had only certain funds at his disposal, and he asked for cause why more than a due proportion should go the way of those who put forward demands. In other words, why any one group of unemployed should further impoverish their comrades elsewhere. Because of this line of reasoning he was called, a “ scoundrel ” and somewhat impolitely told not to tell “ political cock-and-bull stories.” He was accused of allowing women and children to starve; but the irony of this contention was revealed when the crowd moved away, leaving a plentiful layer of cigarette butts and matches on the road. The Minister appealed for fifty volunteers to accept work at tree-plantiing, but he appealed in vain. One man did offer to come forward, but he added a stipulation that he should draw twenty-five shillings a day from the fund ! When it is remembered that the problem of unemployment arose out of a crisis it can be questioned wher ther the steps we have followed pre tending to-day to perpetuate and-ex-tend the evils out of which the crisis arose. Whether in systems for unemployment relief we have, at best, purchased but a temporary respite at

the cost of a complete surrender to the forces of reaction. The crisis was the reward of an abandonment to extravagance in this country and in all others. Commitments were piled up as though they counted for nought, and certainly there was little regard for the day of settlement. Thrift became no longer a virtue; economy was a thing to talk about but not to practise; the gospel of work wias forgotten. Are we not striving to cling to those false standards to-lday ? Is it not clear that with its every attempt to bridge the gap of unemployment the Government has made more remote a personal recognition of responsibility. In itself the demand that what the Government has intended as relief should be made standard work indicates the danger of the present situation which threatens to make permanent a system which was intended should be temporary. It becomes increasingly evident that the provision of relief is having a demoralising effect. It is dwarfing individuality and killing initiative. Instead of cultivating self-reliance in the overthrow of their own problems young men are growing up accustomed to the care of the State. But, withal, though they would expect sustenance as a right, with equal vehemence they will claim it a right to enjoy perfect freedom of action. It is an impossible condition. As logically it could be suggested that the private employer should forfeit the right to say what work should be done for the wages he pays. If the* Government is to be responsible for those men in Palmerston North —if as a last resort it must pay them a sustenance allowance —then is it not ridiculous that the Minister should appeal in vain for men to take up seasonal work like tree-planting? It suggests that the drift to-day is only accumulating still greater trouble for to-morrow. If it is to happen that men can “ demand ” of the Government that it shall extract from the earnings of those who seek to preserve their own independence sufficient money to provide even bare sustenance for those who refuse to accept either work or responsibility of their own livelihood then difficult days are surely ahead. It would seem that whatever defects may have entered the system under which unemployment relief is administered, there can be none so great as the one which underlies the whole system itself in that it is undermining the stamina and resourcefulness of the people. The time arrives when the Government should set about ridding itself of the weapon it has created, not only for the parading of its own shortcomings but also for the weakening of the morale of the people. There is an interest in the community that insists that the Government should stand firm and not concede “ demands.” The demon-strators-themselves will be better served by refusal under urge of necessity they would then be more likely to fend for themselves. The sooner they can be brought to do that the better will it be for everybody.

If only half what is said about the Government is true, then is it not clear that somebody somewhere is taking money in a way never intended, and putting it into his own pocket; that somebody else is shirking work, dodging responsibility, and preying upon society? It is not likely that these traitors and shirkers are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people by fomenting discontent with the Government so that they can serve their own ends? Is it not a fact that the faults of the Government in the main arise out of abuses by those who are seeking to profit out of emergency? Instead of blaming the Government should not society ban the traitor and the shirker? In the end, it seems clear that the fault is less with the Government than it is with the people themselves.