SOCIAL POLICY

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXX, Issue 163, 19 July 1935, Page 6

SOCIAL POLICY

Of New Zealand UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD’S PART ADDRESS BY MR W. BROMLEY (Per Press Association.) DANNEVIRKE, This Day. Less than Iten years ago the approved social' policy of New Zealand touching unemployment was that every man av ho lost his employment must rely mainly on his own resources to get another position and to keep himself and his family alive in the meantime. Labour exchanges, (operating as clearing houses for employment, were provided by the Government’ but, apart from recruiting labour for public works carried on by the Government, they were not verv effective.

To-day, almost five years have passed since the introduction of legislation which accepts unemployment as a national social responsibility; and, by way of contrast, (the question of whether the present legislative machinery is adequate to deal satisfactorily with the problem of unemployment in New Zealand is indeed a burning one. If a plebiscite were to be taken on that question, inviting a yes or no answer, the result might easily be a unanimous no. It is very unfortunate, however, that the employment position would be in no wise improved as a result of this unanimous declaration of disapproval.

It Is even, more unfortunate that so many of our responsible citizens still mistake a resolution of disapproval of measures taken to relieve unemploymentj’or a contribution towards a solution of the problem. Unemployment to-day is regarded as the greatest of our social problems. If the legislation as it is written is in any way falling short of expectation; i>f you feel like condemning it because at does not provide for long range planning, try and remember the atmosphere in which it was born.

“The legislation musjt be regarded as temporary only.” "No new department must be created.” “Administration costs must as far as possible be avoided.” These and many .similar phrases were prominent in the debates and were widely applauded in the country. There was not that directness, that confidence, and that determination which chara.cterised the introduction of the Reserve Bank, the Mortgage Corporation, or the Executive Dairy Commission.

Any known weaknesses notwithstanding, the present 'legislation as a measure designed to deal with the relief of distress arising from seasonal and short-term employment has met the emergency arising from the depression over 'a. wide field with results comparing more than fav/ourahly with any othe rknown administration. The measure of relief granted, admitted to he totally inadequate’ in itself to meet all the requirements of the recipients, is on a higher basis ’than th'at of any other known unemployment relief administration. No increase in the national indebtedness has been involved; administration costs have been extremely low; and the national expenditure has to u great extent been recovered 1 by thie creation of national and public body assets. The problem of unemployment in New Zealand to-day differs widely from the problem as it was understood in 1929. From an unemployment problem that was largely seasonal, the position has changed to a problem of chronic large scale unemployment. During the same period, and associated with tho problem of unempljoyment. as a country tve have emerged from a •position as exporters privileged to work on the easy assumption that England offered a bottomless market for our produce at profitable prices b’o a position where our export market is being restricted by quotas, and where export ’.prices barely meet production costs. Dependent to the extent we 'are on the value of our, exportable products, the single factor of a sharp drop in export prices would have had a tremendous adverse effect on our general employment position. The difficulty has been greatly accentuated, however, by the introduction of machinery to displace labour. As instance, despite the depressed state of our dairying industry, nvlking machine plants Ito take the place of labour on the farm are being installed at the rate of over I,ooo’ plants per •annum. Nor has this practice of introducing machinery to displace labour been confined to our farming industry; It is as much in evidence in our factoniets, in our workshops, and on our

waterfront. Whilst this policy of rationalisation goes merrily on, we have, as at- the end of last month, 53,241 adult males wholly or .partially dependent upon the Unemployment Fund. This group, during the past four years, has fluctuated between the minimum of 44,000 and the maximum of 75,246. The men wholly dependent upon the Board’s intermittent work scheme, known as Scheme 5/ or on sustenance payments—that is, men without any definite contract of employment—have fluctuated between the minimum of 31,884 and the maximum of 45,749. Let me at this stage direct your attentilotti to this facit: The farmer or the industrialist called upon to, make a decision on the question of introducing or not introducing a machine on his farm or in his business to take the place of man-labour, has no accepted responsibility flo<r the welfare of the worker who is displaced, . apart from paying his tax like other persons; also the State, now called upon to accept the responsibility for the welfare of the displaced mai, has no say whatever in the question of whether the man’s job shall be given over ito the machine.

This, then, is the picture of the '.problem to-day: 53,241 of our male adults are either without employment or employed as a condition of assistance given to the industry from the Unemployment Fund. 36,305 are without Contract of employment because industry cannot employ them profitably. Thift number could be reduced to some unknown extent if we made a new definition of who is employed, and excluded all those who, through physical or mental) infirmity, are unable to qualify as being able and willing to work; but for the purpose of this talk the numbers I have given may be considered accurate.