CITY COUNCIL SUBSIDY.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20862, 23 May 1933, Page 10

CITY COUNCIL SUBSIDY.

RELIEF WAGE RATES. DISCUSSION ON MOTION TO DISCONTINUE. DECISION DEFERRED UNTIL NEXT MEETING. Although the continued payment by the City Council, of a subsidy on the wages of its relief workers was brought up for discussion at the council meeting last evening, the matter was deferred for final consideration until the next meeting, pending full consideration by the Finance Committee. The subject was brought up by a motion from Cr. H. T. J. Thacker for direct discontinuance of the subsidy, but the motion was superseded by the amendment to refer it to the Finance Committee. Cr. Thacker moved:—"That the present subsidy of 2s a day paid by the Council to men on relief work be discontinued, and that the Unemployment Board be advised that all men "for whom work is provided by the council under the No. 5 Scheme will in future be subject to the usual conditions as laid down by the board." A Question of Finance.

"It has been said in the city that all kinds of things were happening to the funds of the council," he began. "During the election it was asked what the purpose of the subsidy to relief workers under the council was. This is not a question of humanity; it is a question of finance. It is not a question of taking money from people who need more, but whether we should not dispense that money to people who have less. I believe there should be equality of sacrifice. If there are hundreds worse off than the council relief workers, as I believe there are, they should get this money. There is for example, your own relief of distress fund, which needs assistance. I find that last year the subsidy was £3554, and this year £.7000, or £133 a week. If that £133 were dispensed to those who are worse off, it would make a lot of differcncc" * Dr. Thacker added that the Mayor had himself referred to the inequality of the subsidy scheme. The Mayor: No. Cr. Thacker: You aid not deny it. It was reported In "The Press. The Mayor: I can't help that. Cr. Thacker: Do you mean you can't help what you said? Continuing, Councillor Thackei said: "I am the last man rn the world to take 2s from these men. But we should remember there are others on the Summit road and elsewhere getting 10s a week. I am not going to stress this, but I do want to know where the money is "We have heard stories that £4O 000 of Unemployment Board money has gone back to Wellington because it could not be subsidised. I believe now it was not to the City Council but to local bodies in North Canterbury. If it has gone back it was a crime, and I am not stopping at this resolution.

Need for a Change. Cr. E. H. Andrews said he would second the motion pro forma. He had himself on occasion publicly criticised the subsidy, not because he thought the men received enough wages, but because it was only to a certain number of the men, and because on their own showing it was applied inequitably. He believed | there was a better way of distributing the money. When the council decided on the subsidy, conditions were very different. The Unemployment Board was then paying 12s 6d a day, and the Labour council decided to bring this amount up to award rates. The board had since changed its rates, as well as the hours worked. Now the men with the largest families received the least advantage. The Mayor: The total number of men on subsidy who receive less than they would under the Government scheme is 105 out of a total of 900. Something like £2OOO had been paid by the men in tax to the Unemployment Board, continued Cr. Andrews, because as soon as they received the subsidy the men were taxed. Unemployment Allocation. An allocation of about £SOOO was made each week by the Unemployment Board to the Christchurch district —which included some 26 local bodies over a fair part of the nearer portion of North Canterbury. Of this sum, Christchurch had received about £I4OO a week. For a time many of the other bodies had failed to find work and material for the men to absorb the allocation, and consequently the money had never been claimed. It would be a good thing if the motion led to a more equitable division of the money. Cr. J. S. Barnett moved as an amendment that further consideration should be deferred until the Finance Committee had an opportunity to see whether there was an alternative method of assisting the unemployed. He hoped Cr. Thacker would recognise that references made to inhumanity were not directed against him personally, but he had fathered a most unfortunate proposal. The men, in spite of the subsidy, were getting far from enough. He thought it would be unwise to act hastily. Cr. J. Mathison seconded the amendment. By a despicable action the Government had necessitated a review of unemployment relief finances. Cr. Beanland's Attitude. Cr. J. W. Beanland said he wondered whether to support the motion or the amendment. He was surprised at the opinions expressed, for he had heard in many quarters that the men were tired of the subsidy. The amendment had a good deal to commend it, for in committee the matter could be thrashed out. "I am in favour of the subsidy being abolished," said Cr. Beanland, "but that does not say that we should not use the money in another way. Last year we would have been better off without the subsidy." Cr. T. Milliken asked whether the matter, if it was referred to the ■committee, would not be deaM-with

for another four weeks. If that was so, the present abuses would go on all that time. The Mayor: What abuses are you referring to? Cr. Milliken: Inequalities is perhaps the better word. He said he was definitely opposed to the subsidy, though he was not against some of the money being used for the benefit of the unemployed generally. Cr. M. E. Lyons said he must support the motion. He still emphasised that unemployment was a national problem and should be treated as such. The council had no right to ask its ratepayers to pay one halfpenny more than the ratepayers of, say, Heathcote. Was Christchurch the "City Bountiful" that it could distribute special funds to a favoured few? If the money was available then it should be allocated among all the unemployed, not among a few of them only. Delay for another month would mean a further heavy loss. Cr. E. R. McCombs said some of the statements of Cr. Lyons had been misleading. In subsidising wages the council was following the lead of its war-time predecessor, which had added to the wages of those of its employees who had gone to the front. Further Amendments. Cr. F. T. Evans gave notice to move a further amendment: "That the question of considering the discontinuance of the 2s a day subsidy be deferred to the next meeting of the council, and that in the meantime other local bodies be consulted for the purpose of determining a uniform and more liberal scale of employment for all."

Cr. A. E. Armstrong asked if the Mayor would later accept a further amendment that relief workers should receive trade union rates of wages. ~ ~ *u The Mayor said he could at the proper time. Cr. Beanland: They are getting more than trade union rates, which are 13s lOd. The council pays 14s 6d. Cr. W. Hayward remarked that Cr. McCombs had said the matter had been discussed from every angle during the last two years. If that was so, what was hoped to be done in the month before the next council meeting? ..*,,. u-i„ Cr. E. H. Andrews said that while he saw the advantage of Cr. Barnett's amendment, he believed there was a general desire to get rid of this subsidy. He felt some extra provision should be made, however. "If you can give me a guarantee that the matter will be fixed within ten days, I shall withdraw my motion," said Cr. Thacker to the Mayor. The Mayor: What do you mean by "fixed up"? . . Cr. Thacker: If we have a special meeting, with a report from the Finance Committee. The Mayor: I am sorry, but I can give no such assurance. Cr. J. K. Archer said there seemed to be a general desire to find some sort of : olution to the problem. Cr. Andrews had said some form of assistance should be continued, but it was necessary, if the old scheme was dropped, to have something to replace it. A month was a short time in which to prepare a plan. Cr. M. B. Howard said that as the largest employer of labour in Canterbury -the City Council should set an example. It was true the Unemployment Board had manoeuvred the council into a position where the board received a large part of the subsidy. She hoped the amendment would be carried. Cr. Thacker asked permission to withdraw his motion, and on a resolution to this effect being put, the Mayor ruled it carried, but Cr. Lyons dissented, contending that a motion to withdraw had to be unanimous. His contention was upheld. The amendment, put as a motion, was carried by 12 votes to five. The ayes were:—Crs. Archer, McCombs, Howard, Barnett, Thurston, Butterfield, Mathison, Armstrong, T. Andrews, Beanland, E. H. Andrews, and the Mayor. The noes were: _Crs. Thacker, Evans, Lyons, Milliken, and Hayward. Cr. Evans, speaking to his amendment, said the subsidy caused a great deal of comment and dissatisfaction among other unemployed workers. He hoped by his amendment to lift up the wages of these other workers as well. His amendment was not seconded, and lapsed. Cr. Armstrong's amendment also lapsed for want of a seconder. Cr. Archer undertook to consider the questions raised in both Cr. Evans's and Cr. Armstrong's amendments. Cr. Barnett's original amendment, as a motion, was carried.

UNEMPLOYED MEN'S OPPOSITION. ■ DEPUTATION WAITS ON CITY COUNCIL. i Opposition to the proposal that the present subsidy paid to City Council relief workers should be discontinued, according to the terms of Cr. H. T. J. Thacker's motion, was voiced by a deputation of relief workers, which waited on the council last evening. The deputation contended that such a course would be inhumane, and would lessen the esteem which the council had earned by its endeavours to maintain a better level of relief wages. On most of the big jobs that day a resolution had been passed condemning the motion, said Mr R. J. Cornwell, the leader of the deputation. Never before had a more inhumane motion been before the council. It would take bread and butter out of the cupboards of the men. They asked that instead of reducing the payment, the council should try to find a means of maintaining the subsidy. The Hospital Board had asked for collaboration in meeting the present position, yet the council was faced with a motion to lessen the amount received by the men. "Council in High Esteem." The council had been placed in high esteem throughout the Dominion by its action in paying the higher rate, but by passing the motion it' would lessen that esteem. The men were now receiving 25s 2d to 37s 6d a week, but if the subsidy was removed they would be on the 9s level of the Unemployment Board. The men would resent any such action. An indication of their concern about the proposal was that between 400 and 500 men were, at the moment, waiting outside the council chambers. Not Receiving Enough. One argument put up against the subsidy was that the man with no children received more benefit than the man with three children. Even with the advantages, however, the men with the subsidy were not receiving enough. It was said the saving to ratepayers would be £7OOO, but it was not much when all ratepayers were considered. If the subsidy was removed, the money available for rations would have to be spread over a larger number of men. It would be an attack on the living of these workers, many of whom were actually on the bread line. If a motion withdrawing the subsidy was carried, the council would be robbing innocent women and children. The Mayor: You must not say that. The councillors will vote according to fheir consciences. " The deputation. 4henffMittid«ei*er-