The Press MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1935. Unemployment Policy

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21413, 4 March 1935, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1935. Unemployment Policy

j The Rotary Conference has been ! fortunate in hearing from Mr W. I Bromley, the deputy-chairman of the ! Unemployment Board, the first j frank and intelligent statement | about unemployment that has been made officially for more than a year. In the past it has been very difficult to discover, and often still more difficult to understand, the policy and methods of the Unemployment Board. Pressed in the House to explain this or that aspect of the board's activities, the Minister for Employment has usually taken refuge in generalities or evasions; and most of the local unemployment committees have either gone out of existence or become moribund because of the board's habitual secretiveness. The Minister and the members of the board sometimes complain that their critics show little appreciation of the complexity of the unemployment problem; and although there is some justification for the complaint it must be admitted that those responsible for the administration of unemployment relief have shown very little inclination to take the public into their confidence. Mr Bromley's speecli to the Rotary Conference was a pleasant break from an unfortunate tradition. In general, it was not an apology or a defence but an exposition of a very difficult problem and an appeal to all thinking citizens to assist in its solution. The problem, as Mr Bromley shows very clearly, is not to provide work and n reasonable sustenance allowance for the unemployed until the process of recovery draws them back into industry. It is becoming increasingly clear that thousands who are now out of work will never find their way back into their old occupations. There are two reasons for this. One is that the use of laboursaving devices has increased rapidly during the depression under the stimulus of the effort to reduce overhead costs in production. Nor is it any longer possible to accept the comfortable theory of the classical economists that technological unemployment is nothing to worry about since it produces its own cure. The other reason is that the world-wide growth of economic self-sufficiency, and in particular the agricultural | and tariff policies of the British Government, have set limits to the development of the primary indus- j tries in New Zealand. If, therefore, the people of New Zealand wish to escape from the certainty of a permanently high level of unemployment they must be prepared to give serious thought to such remedies as the adoption of a shorter working we'ek and the deliberate creation, by means of tariffs and other forms of import restriction, of a more balanced economic system. Unfortunately, the case for both these remedies has been weakened by extremists and unwise enthusiasts. The other day Mr Forbes said bluntly and sensibly that the general adoption of a 40-hour week in New Zealand was not at the moment practicable. To admit the truth of this is not to deny that it is possible to reduce hours in some industries, that hours could be regulated in some industries where there is now no regulation, and that much overtime work could be eliminated. There is, after all, a long period trend in New Zealand as in other countries for hours of work to be reduced; and much can be done by investigating this trend and seeking to stimulate it. In the same way, the case for a more balanced industrial economy has to some extent been discredited by those who argue for complete control of imports and the exclusion of all commodities that can be produced in New Zealand. Possibly, though not probably, such a policy would reduce unemployment. What is quite certain is that it would mean a heavy fall in the standard of living. The creation of a more balanced economy does not, as Mr Bromley seems to perceive, involve a plunge into crude economic nationalism. Indeed, he suggests that some secondary industries could, under existing tariff arrangements, increase their output substantially if they would go in for rationalisation and reduce the number of independent units of production. To see the long-term remedies for unemployment is, of course, much easier than to see how fhey are to be applied. Mr Bromley spoke of State intervention in industry; and no doubt some State action will be necessary. But employers and producers will be making a grievous mistake if they stand aside and leave the whole matter to the Unemployment Board and the Government. Whatever method of dealing with the unemployment problem is adopted must affect them profoundly. In their own interests and in the interests of the community it is desirable that they should seek some sort of partnership with the Unemployment Board.