NOT WANTED

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 113, 15 May 1934, Page 11

NOT WANTED

SUSTENANCE SCHEME

LOWER HUTT PROTEST

SUBSIDY ON: HOUSES

-..-Th,e. .action, .of . the Palnierston, North Borough Council in protesting against the sustenance proposals of the Unemployment. Board, as outlined to that body, was supported unanimously by the Lower Hutt Borough Council last evening. By a majority of eight votes to two the council requested the Unemployment Board i to revive the building, subsidy scheme, with modifications. ' The motion in: support, ;of the Palm-, erston North protest was moved by Councillor Grierson, who said that under the relief scheme it was difficult -for people to exist, hut under the proposed sustenance scheme it would, be impossible to do so. . Councillor F. Campbell seconded the motion, but said ho was of the opinion that the council should go much further. The cure for unemployment was employment, and the only remedy was to get men back on full-time employment and wages. To this end the building subsidy should be re-established. The Unemploj'ment Board had in difficult circumstances done great work, and one of its best efforts' had been the building subsidy. It had been perhaps too ambitious, and the subsidy had been wrongly allowed on big jobs. One of the great needs today was the building of small houses, and one of the best things that could bo done in boroughs similar to. Lower Hutt was to build houses of from £600 to £1600 in value. If the subsidy was limited to such houses it would be a great encouragement to people who needed them to build them.. The,country was now well ou the road to recovery, but there was n, fear about the coming winter;' if the next few months were passed safely recovery would be more rapid. The building industry was the key industry of the Dominion, bringing men directly and indirectly into employment.quickly. On a conservative estimate 10,000 new houses were needed in the Dominion. The need was for instant action. "A CRUEL INFLICTION." Councillor... Wilson said he thought the board -should go still further and subsidise renovations and painting jobs. The proposed sustenance scheme, was a cruel infliction. It was wicked that a man with a wife and five children should be asked to accept 20sa week., The protest against the '-proposed sustenance rates was supported by. Councillors; Meldnim, Napier, ' and Asliton. ' ' The Mayor (Mr. J. W. Andrews) said the protest had his entire support. He knew of a case where a man with, a wife and ;sevcn other dependants was getting 37s 6d per week,,l7s 6d of which was deducted each week by- the State Advances Department for rent; * All the man had left-for food, clothes, fuel, and light for eight persons was 20s, plus 4s family allowance, or an average of 3s each per week. In addition, the wife and one son were ill and required special food. The case threw an undue burden on the relief- committee and the Bed Cross Society. Under the sustenlanco schqinq, however, every fourth week the man, after paying his 17s 6d 8 rent, would-have to subsist on 2s 6d, plus 4s, a total of 6s 6d to feed and clothe eight persons. The council agreed unanimously to support tho'action of the Palmerston North Council. ■ subsidy' on smaller houses. Councillor Campbell then moved that the Unemployment Board be asked to subsidise the building of houses, the value of which did not exceed from £500 to £1500 (or some such similar sum), exclusive of the value'of the land._ Some people, he said, would say that it-was giving money to those who should not get it, and that through the subsidy the value of property was being reduced by 25 per cent., but the point was that unless something was don© quickly property would be reduced not by 25 per cent, but by 100 per cent. Even if some did get "more than they should, the whole community would, benefit through the men 'being employed. Ho. believed it was just the- initial swing which the1 wheel of industry needed to keep it going continuously. There was also the factor that skilled nien were losing their proficiency by idleness, and that was not only detrimental to themselves but to the country. -~.-•■ Councillor Anderson agreed with Councillor. Campbell, : and said sustenance should be reserved for the unemployable. Instead of making -Billy roads like Korokoro and Wainui, useful works should-be put in hand, and he- would be prepared to see-all useful work subsidised—railway's or useful borough, work. Councillor Ginger also supported the idea, but said he thought it should not be confined to building. ' ' Councillor Ashtcn, in supporting the proposal, though he disliked subsidies, said the building industry should be alalo to exist without a subsidy, but it had been hampered through the interference of the Government, in business. Councillor Grierson opposed the motion, and said the giving of the subsidy in the past had so, depleted the funds that sustenance was now the best the board could offer. It was wrong that persons other than the unemployed should benefit from tlie funds. The f Mayor said he felt sure the board would admit that the building subsidy had paid through the increase in the wages tax. Councillor Napier disapproved of the building subsidy, and said that funds which had been raised for the unemployed were being diverted to big companies with frozen assets. Private enterprise should not benefit at the cost of the unemployed. He would agree to railways being subsidised; but not private individuals.

After further discussion, the motion was carried, Councillors Grierson and Napier rlissentinsr. A deputation consisting of the Mayor and Councillors Campbell, Ashton, and Ginger was set up to put the matter before the Unemployment Board.