The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1931. UMEMPLOYMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18407, 14 August 1931, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1931. UMEMPLOYMENT.

It is inevitable that the question of unemployment should occasion much discussion and criticism. The whole history of the Government's treatment of the question is one that does not reflect any great credit on our statesmanship. Trouble began some four years ago when the Reform Party was in office and their method of dealing witli it was to authorise local bodies to borrow in order to provide work. The effect of this was that the larger local bodies In town took advantage of this authority and put works in hand, with the result that unemployed men were drawn from the country to town. As unemployment Increased, the United Party, then In power, passed the Unemployment Act last year, providing that men should have either work or sustenance. For a time this work was carried on at 14s per day until it was found that the money to be raised by a poll-tax would not be sufficient. The rate of pay was then reduced and an Amending Act has been passed greatly increasing the contributions to the Unemployment Fund. An Unemployment Board was set up which has since been abolished, and another smaller board constituted in its place. All this shows an utter want of knowledge how to deal with the problem It is certainly a new one, and to that extent the failure may be understood. We have always maintained that the responsibility lay with the Government, who should not have attempted to set up a board. They had all the knowledge and had the power to control and direct the proceedings of the board and the constitution of this body was nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the Government. The employment provided by the late Board was mainly through local bodies and the Government have thrown upon these local bodies a considerable part of the expense. This Is grossly unfair for at the same time there is a constant complaint of local body expenditure and high rates. The Government is even now proposing to set up an enquiry into local government and its reform. The local body is made the scapegoat for shortcomings of the Government, and is railed on to do work which the Government itJ self should undertake. When we say the Government it must always be understood that the direction of affairs lies in the hands of various civil servants. The Treasury controls, under the name of Financial Adviser all the main departments of the 'country. There are boards of all I kinds set up. but each one of them is , practically controlled by the Treasury. . Boards are mere camouflage: ft here I Is the Local Body Loans Board, in which members are drawn from ail parts of Xew Zealand, tn in Wei j lington where decisions are controlled

by the Treasury. This board meets with the approval of all those who know nothing about it, and has contributed largely to unemployment, which Is the problem of to-day. There are Instances where it has refused local bodies the right to borrow without giving any reason for so doing, and where the work which It is proposed to carry out is now being done by relief-work men, whose wages are paid by the Unemployment Board. The idea that five men and a Government official sitting In Wellington are better judges of what should be done than a locally-elected body living on the spot is Gilbertian, like so much of our practice which always proceeds on the assumption that in Wellington only is wisdom to be found. Mr Forbes has recently Issued a circular calling on local bodies to pay the cost of transporting relief men to the site of their work. This Is one more addition to the charges thrown on local bodies. The claim that local bodies are getting work done for which the Unemployment Board pay the wages has very little substance In it. In many cases the work in hand would not have been done for years. The regulations Issued by the Unemployment Board specified that nothing should be done that would have been Included In the current year's estimates or the next year's estimates. In practice they have been found to be unworkable; it led to a wide protest that men were employed on uneconomic undertakings and the public, who did not know of the regulations blamed the local bodies. The suspicion felt m the departments that local bodies would take advantage of the Unemployment Board led to ridiculous regulations which were found to be impossible to enforce. If the Local Bodies Loans Board persists In its policy of curtailing local body loans unemploynwnt will remain with us for a long time. The failure of the last loan floated in London shows that we must not attempt to borrow again for some time. Without loan funds the Public Works Department cannot carry on, and the large numbers which they employ will be added to the list of unemployed. All this points to a necessity lor greater consideration being given to the method in which relief is found. There can be no question whatever that the development of land is the most economic method of providing work. Land development, however, requires capital as well as labour, and if we are to receive any benefit from the £2,500,000 to be raised by the poll-tax for relief of unemployment a somewhat similar fund must be provided for making the work of unemployed effective. The subsidy ol wages paid by farmers to men whom they will take on for their keep is one method of using unemployment funds, and if it could be carried out to a sufficient extent would possibly be the best method. It Is clear, however, that this cannot deal with more than a small proportion of those requiring relief. The present board consists of three men not paid sufficient to occupy their full time who cannot therefore become experts. Local committees have often submitted schemes worth considering, but as they were not devised in Wellington they were not considered practicable. It would be sensible to take a different line towards local committees and to act on their suggestions where feasible and to provide them with some funds to work with. In New Zealand of all countries it is impossible to make centralisation a success. Each district knows its own problem, and with some encouragement there would be much voluntary effort to assist.