SUBSIDY TO BE SOUGHT

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21124, 27 March 1934, Page 9

SUBSIDY TO BE SOUGHT

£22,000 ROADING LOAN PRINCIPLE DISCUSSED BY CITY COUNCIL It is probable that the City Council will be able to obtain a subsidy from the Unemployment Board on its work to be carried out under the £ 22,000 supplementary roading loan provided certain requirements concerning the selection of labour are carried out. This statement was made at the meeting of the council last night, when it was decided, after discussion, that application for a subsidy would be made. The Commissioner of Unemployment advised that where local bodies had in view developmental or other necessary work which, without subsidised assistance, they would be unable to put in hand, the board was prepared to consider extending subsidised assistance under certain conditions. The conditions set out were provided the local body was not in a financial position itself to undertake the works, that works were arranged 01. a basis of full-time employment of at least 40 hours a week at standard rates of pay; and that registered and eligible relief workers were engaged. It would be necessary for local bodies to reveal their financial position and show that assistance was necessary to enable the work to proceed. "Local bodies are required to submit, for consideration by the board, full information of the works proposed," continued the letter, "and in the event of the board approving of subsidised assistance, this would probably be in the form of a subsidy based on the conjugal classification of the relief workers engaged."

Report of Negotiations The chairman of the works committee, Cr. J. W. Beanland, reported that when he was in Wellington at the Municipal Conference he, together with Cr. J. S. Burnett, approached representatives of the Unemployment Board concerning obtaining a subsidy from the board on the work which was to be carried out under the £22,000 supplementary reading loan, and was informed that provided the council guaranteed to select the men to be employed on these works from the registered unemployed, the question of the payment of a subsidy would receive the board's favourable consideration.

The works committee argued that the receipt of a subsidy would enable additional works to be carried out without in any way curtailing the wages received by the men engaged thereon. "The majority, if not all the men engaged on the reconstruction of Riccarton avenue, were selected from the registered unemployed, and the proposal would in no way penalise them, but would, on the other hand, provide additional work at full time wages.

In the circumstances, therefore, the committee recommended that application be made to the board as suggested. The recommendation was adopted. Criticism of Subsidy Principle Cr. A. E. Armstrong said that the council was in a financial position which did not justify application for a subsidy. The reconstructions of Ferry road, Riccarton avenue, and Colombo street south would have been done if no subsidy had been available, and he attacked the principle of seeking a subsidy in such circumstances. "Surely you have, as a council, exploited the Unemployment Board enough already," he added. "It is audacity —cheek. It is high time this council gave other local bodies an example and having raised a loan and intending to pay trade union rates of pay. should ask the Unemployment Board to disperse the money it has as sustenance and not ask for assistance through a subsidy. Unemployment money, partly subscribed by men and women out of work, should not be used to purchase material for work which would be done and should be done as ordinary maintenance." Cr. E. H. Andrews accused Cr. Armstrong of being illogical. The scheme was an effort to get men back into work.

Cr. Armstrong: Half the men are in the job now before you get the subsidy. Continuing, Cr. Andrews said that the scheme had been advocated by thinking people throughout the Dominion. It was felt that the pittance paid to men on relief works was insufficient to keep body and soul together and protests against that pittance had been made from time to time. Surely the scheme was the only one which would help men back into full earning power, and allow them to regain their selfrespect. The elimination of some of the difficulties at present experienced was anticipated from a subsidy scheme by Cr. J. Mathison. If it was going to be the general principle throughout New Zealand to accept the subsidy on maintenance work Christchurch would be mad not to accept it. Voices: Hear, hear!

Comment of Councillors Cr. E. R. McCombs, M.P., said that if the scheme was to give unemployed men full-time work at standard rates of pay she stood for it. If it did not then she would not countenance it. She thought Cr. Armstrong was prepared to sacrifice the unemployed for his theories. She was not prepared to see unemployed men and their families starve while she aired mere theories. Cr. M. E. Lyons said he thought it economically sound to take a subsidy which p'laced in long-term work not 276 men but 500 men, and which took the extra men from earninp rates of £1 5s or £1 17s to £4 a week. The Deputy-Mayor, Cr. J. K. Archer, said he had been besieged by unemployed men asking for positions on the intended work under a subsidy scheme. The chairman of the works committee, Cr. J. W. Beanland, said that if a further £BOOO to £IO,OOO perhaps in subsidy would enable the council to do work which would not otherwise be done for two or three years at least then its acceptance was desirable. He considered Cr. Armstrong's comment was undesirable, as it might influence some against a subsidy. The report was adopted without further discussion.