• No se han encontrado resultados

DISTRIBUCION ESPACIAL Y COMUNICACIÓN

In document Diagnostico ONG DDHH sin pdf (página 50-56)

5- REALIDAD COMUNICACIONAL

5.5. DISTRIBUCION ESPACIAL Y COMUNICACIÓN

Although the Labour Government provided sustenance payments, they were only used as an interim measure. This position was spelt out by the Minister of Employment when he said:

Payment of sustenance to able-bodied on any scale whatever is not our objective. We shall not consider our work completed as long as the necessity exists for any sustenance payments being made .. . not until every able-bodied worker is rendering that service to the community to which he is best adapted (NZPD, 1936: 450).

In the 1 939 Budget Statement, the Acting Minister of Finance and Prime Minister, Savage claimed that: "For the past year unemployment has been virtually eliminated and the people have enjoyed a state of full employment" (NZPT), 1939: 88 1). However, the Prime Minister recognised that the full employment which had been achieved at that point in time was still unsustainable in the long term when he said:

We must look to industry for the only possible permanent solution of the unemployment problem. The present basis upon which we have reached a state of full employment cannot be anything but a temporary phase because it is not economically sound to keep so many men engaged permanently upon works (NZPD, 1939: 881).

Savage recognised the fact that employment based on public works required high levels of borrowing which could have an adverse effect on the economy.

The Labour Party had been advocating the development and protection of the manufacturing industries against foreign competition since 1928 as a way of stabilising employment

(Evening Post,

November 7, 1928). Tariffs and import licensing were an integral part of Labour's policy response to sustain high levels of employment. This policy was not without opposition. The introduction of exchange and import controls in 1938 were vigorously opposed not only by the National Party, but also attracted threats from Britain. 3 Savage backed the protectionist measures not only as essential to conserve foreign exchange but also as part of a longer-term plan, "to insulate New Zealand's dependent economy and to encourage industrial development and full employment" (Gustafson, 1986: 244). Nevertheless the Labour Party believed that both economic and employment stability could be achieved under a more rational and planned approach, and continued with its policies (Brooking, 1981).

In 1939 there were still more than 19,000 men who were either on subsidised employment or in receipt of unemployment benefits (AJHR, 1940 H-l lA). 3 "When New Zealand imposed import controls, Malcolm MacDonald, the British Secretary of State for the Dominions, immediately informed Savage . . . that the British would retaliate against New Zealand unless it curtailed its expensive social services and cut its public works programmes. Savage was also warned that the injudicious utterances of some members of the Labour caucus about British investment in New Zealand might well make the renegotiation of loans more difficult and costly" (Gustafson, 1986: 244-245).

The figure of 19,000, representing 37 unemployed persons per 1 ,000 of the male working population, (a rate of 3.7%) was however regarded by economists at the time as an irreducible minimum (A]HR, 1946 H-l lA). However, other prominent economists at the time suggested 1-2 percent as the minimum figure in a state of full employment (Parker, 1953).

The National Member of Parliament for Mataura, Mr T.L. Mcdonald, was not impressed with the Prime Minister'S claim of full employment.

They have, perhaps, enjoyed a state of full employment, but it has not been economic employment; it has been employment at the taxpayers' expense. Instead of the men being placed in private industry, they have been catered for by the state (NZPD, 1 939: 22).

But as Burdon pointed out, the National Party was faced with a dilemma in that it could neither condemn the reforms that were being enacted publicly without incurring further unpopularity, nor accept them without being seen to have abandoned their professed principle that the market knows best (1965). Labour's substantial majority meant that National's opposition did not affect the Government's implementation of its policies and programmes. Besides the abolition of relief wages, the Government also ensured that all those who could not be found work or were unable to work on health grounds were provided with sustenance allowances according to their marital status and number of dependents (see Table 18 above).

Labour's policies towards the unemployed broke with previously established tradition in several respects. The unemployed were no longer treated as if they were responsible for their plight. However, recipients of Sl lstenance allowances were required to report in person twice each week to the Department of Labour to uplift the payment. This practice was intended to ensure that men in ordinary employment did not draw sustenance pay. Persons in receipt of sustenance payments were also required to make weekly declarations of their income for the week preceding that in which they received their sustenance allowances (A]HR, 1937-38). If they had earned any income, their sustenance allowance was adjusted accordingly.

In February 1936 the Labour Government abolished the disparity in rates of pay to relief workers between country districts, secondary towns, and the four large cities. Under this system relief workers in secondary towns had

received from 2s. to 3s. less per week than similar workers in the main centres of population, and country workers from 4s. 6d. to 6s. less (Thorn, 1937). (See Table 19 below for comparison of wage rates paid to relief workers per week on Scheme No. 5 under the Coalition Government and those paid under the Labour Government from June 1 , 1936.) It should be noted that the rates paid under the Labour Government were higher than any paid by the previous government.

TABLE COMPARATIVE WAGES OF RELIEF WORKERS UNDER THE COALITION GOVERNMENT AND LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Coalition Govenunent

labour

Government

Class

Country

Secondary

Main Centres Rates from

1

Districts Towns

]une 1936

s

d

s

d

s

d

s

d

A 12 0 14 0 17 0 21 0 B 21 0 24 0 27 0 38 6 C 25 0 28 0 31 0 42 6 D 29 0 32 0 35 0 46 6 E 33 0 36 0 39 0 50 6 F 35 0 38 0 41 0 54 6 G 37 0 40 0 43 0 58 6 H 39 0 42 0 45 0 62 6 I 41 0 44 0 47 0 66 6

In document Diagnostico ONG DDHH sin pdf (página 50-56)

Documento similar