CITY RELIEF WORK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 262, 4 November 1932, Page 2

CITY RELIEF WORK.

JOBS UNDER NO. 5 SCHEME U HOW FAR AND HOW LONG T » COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY. Reporting on the work done under No. 5 scheme for the Auckland City Council to last night's meeting of the council, Mr. H. P. Burton, chairman of the Works Committee, said that without the assistance of the council the Unemployment Board would have had great difficulty in meeting the problem. Three features presented themselves: (1) l s the council receiving an adequate return for the expenditure involved? (2) Can the present expenditure, covering all the work in progress and involving supervision, cost of materials and plant, etc., be the subject of investigation, with a view to saving in cost? (3) How far,' in view of the national character of unemployment, is the council justified in continuing to expend so large a sum of money out of "current revenue? With regard to the class of work carried out by the council, covering the jobs now under control, Mr. Burton said lie had no hesitation in say ing that while some of the work might be said to be premature and ahead of time, the general gain to the city through the work done would not only be productive, but would meet the need of growth in population in years to come. The works carried out at Windmill Road, Dingle Road (St. Helier's), Waiatarua, Outer Domain, Blockhouse Bay and the street formation work in Shera Road and in the Avondale and Tamaki districts, could be considered of considerable gain to the city. Cost of the Work. The general impression that the work rarried ou«; was in the main unproductive was erroneous. During the half-year ended September 30 work was carried out on 44 jobs, and at the present time there are 25 jobs in progress. The cost of plant, supervision, insurance, cartage, materials, etc., had ranged from 1.5 per cent to 0 per cent, the average for this service on all the works carried out during the same period being 11.2 per cent. It was anticipated, basing the estimate on the number now employed, that at the end of the financial year the average cost for supervision, materials, etc., would be less than 10 per cent. On this estimate the cost to the council this year would approximate £11,000. The most costly works had been some of the smaller jobs (principally street works), where the greater part of the cost had been for materials. On the largest job now being undertaken (the Stone Jug area) the cost to the council for the half-year just ended was 6.7 per cent of the whole cost, the supervision for the work, including special or general wages, being 2.4 per cent. Supervision Essential.

With regard to the second question, he was of opinion that supervision of the nature now employed was essential, and there was no single work carried out, that was not up to the high standard set by the city engineer, and, moreover, the material cost 'was kept down to a minimum. Except in seven instances, the 30 gangers and foremen now employed wore all in receipt of pay under £4 per week, and there were 17 relief men who were receiving varying amounts per day additional to relief pay. The question to be answered was whether the system should be extended by picking out approved men from the ordinary relief workers, witli a view to those men being used as gangers. Savings in cost might be cffectcd thereby.

There was difficulty in balancing the works vote this year, because the city engineer was employing a larger number of men than the vote warranted, eo that more money might be expended on material in relation to the men employed. The unemployment work had absorbed a number of employees as foremen and gangers, who had been in the. employ of the council covering a number of years. There could be no doubt of the efficiency of these men and their qualifications for the work necessary, and tlis point at issue was whether the committee was prepared to discharge a number of these old employees with a view, if possible, to picking out approved relief workers as substitutes. ......

Answering the third question, Mr. Burton said he was of opinion that the council must accept its responsibility, to assist the unemployed. It was obvious the council could not accentuate the Unemployment Board's difficulty, and it must also be remembered that to remove from the city any considerable portion of the large number of married men now employed under scheme No. 5, involving payments of approximately £2200 per week, would be prejudicial to business interests, to say nothing of the dislocation of the home life of the community, "At the same time," concluded -Mr. Burton, "the council has a responsibility to perform in asking itself how far and how long the present expenditure is to be continued." Special Meeting to Consider. Sir. T. Bloodwortli suggested that the report should be considered at a special ■meeting. The council's future policy had to be made known. Resources were being exhausted, and the problem had nit yet been copcd with. There should be definite proposals for neSt winter, and it should be known whether the council could carry on. The Mayor, Mr. G. W. Hutchison, said the Works Committee should state what works were left which could be undertaken. It was decided to call a special meeting after the Works Committee had considered the problem and reported on the position.