DEVONPORT'S UNEMPLOYED RELIEF.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 226, 24 September 1927, Page 12

DEVONPORT'S UNEMPLOYED RELIEF.

QUESTION OF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY. "The reasons piven for the refusal of subsidies by the Government, as mentioned at the last meeting of the Devonport Borough Council scarcely represent the true position," said Mr. A. Harris, member for Waitemata, this morning, "and in justice to the Government I think I ought to put this right. "The refusal of a subsidy by the Government simply on a legal quibble is quite incorrect. It is true a legal quibble that the amounts proposed to be expended in unemployment relief were not raised for that specific purpose, might have been raised but—l think magnanimously—no objection was offered on that account. The sole reason for refusal was that the Devonport Council has not complied with the conditions laid down by the Government. "The conditions provide that any work for which the subsidy is asked must embrace not less than flO per cent of the cost in labour. The Council's estimated expenditure under the various heads at relief rates of pay (12/ per day for married men) are: King Edward parade promenade, £1477—cost of labour £445, cost of material £1031, epproximate ratio of expenditure, labour 30 per cent, material 70 per cent; Stanley Bay parade improvements, £1899 —cost of labour £876, cost of material £1023, approximate ratio of expenditure, labour 46 per :ent, material 54 per cent; improvements ■/O cemetery, £218—cost of labour £128, :ost of material £00, approximate ratio )f expenditure, labour 59 per cent, Material 41 per cent. "It will therefore be seen that only >n the last proposal did the labour per- '♦ n «5 ge a PP*°*»nate the required figure M TO per cent, and on this proposal the has approved of a subsidy of VOnp< i rt E *-Servicemen's Club Eeftftl l ewdu « te * • drive for the KIRR « in a. gir* port «J* randl of been arranged? * * ro ß"»nme hli