SEWERAGE SUBSIDY

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 November 1939, Page 5

SEWERAGE SUBSIDY

BOROUGH COUNCIL'S DILEMMA. DEPUTATION TO MR. WEBB. A difficulty has arisen between the Government and the Greymouth Borough Council as to the. amount of the subsidy payable- by the Government, in connection with the sewerage extension'works iii'tlie Borough. The. 'arrangement regarding - subsidy fj’omthe, Employment- Promotion-/Fund, was that/fdr 'each*married' man employed through .the-Labour Office, there wouldbe paid the. sqm, of-£2/10/- per;,w;eeK for'TUll-time ' This , subsidy. w.as. based? upoii-the* -then existing hourly, for. labourers of'. 2/3J' per hour/ equivalent'to £4/11/8 per w.dek, the subsidy amounting-to-'-six-eleyenths of the weekly, earnings, .Negotiations in - connection with the subsidy were carried on between the parties’in June and July, 1937. The sewer extension was-authorised by' a poll of the ratepayers/ on January 12, 1938, and work was commenced on. May 2, 1938. The "subsidy " Was’ based on the expected employment of 100 men for two years, and the agreement was that the Government should pay. a subsidy of £2/10/- per man per week,- or-a total of £25,000, whichever was th© greater.-' The Council has, however, carried put a good deal of the work on-a cooperative, contract basis.- The men .employed on this basis have earned tqj date .a total, of £13,099/13/9. Some of, the .work has however, -been- : dorfe" oh' a day labour basis, and- their„wages-and other charges, such as staff and .supervision, added to the earnings of the men on the cooperative basis,-bring. the -total wages to date, to £17,902/17/-. Had these 'wages' been earned at the 1 rate for day labour, 0n1y,..;, the subsidy- 10111 tllis amount would have .been £9765/3/10, but, since only a portion ‘of the total -earnings have been subsidised, owing to the higher wages earned by men on contract, the dmount of the subsidy actually paid, to date has been only, £5335/6/1, -leaving a balance of £4429/17/9 in''favour of the Employment. Promotio- Fund. ■ - ■

These- facts were placed befpre the Minister of Labour (Mr. Webb) by a deputation. : * from the. .Greymouth Borough" Council, .last evening, and a request was made'that lie should give favourable to . the payment of this -balance.. The deputation consisted Of‘'the ‘Mayor (Mr.‘ F. A, Kitchi(lgham), ahd .:-.;Crs. F.. F. Boustridge (chairman of the . Works Committee), A. H. McKane and J. B. K_ent. The -Boro/igh Engineer. (Mr. A. J.. Eair-> maid) ' and the - Town . Clerk, - (Mr,.. :F; H ; --Dentoh) --were alsd in'Attendance. .Mr.; Webb was accbmpanied. by. Mi*. A. Ridler, Assistant Secretary o,f Employ'metitf, '-and''other —departmental officials.; ► Mr. M.P.,. introduced'th e deputation. , ~ t V After.’.'the--'Mayor-and other'- members .of The /deputation. had stated’ the Council'scase, Mr. Webb said that the Government had-agreed to’ pay a sub-sidy-of- £2/10/? per .week per . man, up to £25,000, provided the Council employed- 100 mem for a period Of'two years.. The Council had not.kept to this agreement. He did not say .that the Council was wrong,' from its own point of..yi%w,i in-haying the -work done on "a co-operative basis, but the fact-remained that it had not kept to its agreement with the Government. The Council surely did not expect the Government to- subsidise the earnings of men getting, a high wage on. the co-operative’basis.. The Government Whs .prepared to honour its agreement apd pay, tljie subsidy, of £2/10/- a .week itU" accordancewith the original- ar-rangement?-1 ■*• : ..The Mayor: When they sanctioned the" sewerage extension loan the ratepayers thought* the Government was going to provide £25,000. I do not know what' flie views' of the- ratepayers. .will be-how.

i Mr.i.Webb..said that, by rights, cost was- a burden that ratepayers ishoulti catry ; without any help' front..the Government. The sewers should” have been extended in Grey-nio-uth-years ago, to replace the antiquated methods of the ,; dark... ages, Which were still in. use in parts of the town; and whiclr were a menace to,public health and an offence to decency. < ■

LCr.,J3oustridge said that, if they did riot get the £25,000 subsidy, it was. possible that 'they'would have to go back /to. the ...ratepayers ■■* with a further loan proposal. i Mr; Wbbb: The position is that at tjie time the .agreement was made we h,ad, 20Q to. 300. men out of work; here, The ’GoVernirient 'had nio work ,for them, but you had a job-you wanted to. do. . We dealt .with it sympathetically; We budgeted for 100 men and you-employed 40. Thus we were left With 60 men and had to find them work and pay them up to £4/10/- a week, instead of £2/10/-, if they had been employed by you. The Government can rightly claim that you have let them down on that. Besides, it was citizens of- Greymouth we employed, ratepayers of your town. The Mayor: I can see your point of view, but the position is that the- ratepayers thought the subsidy would be £25,000, and now according to the figures of the Engineer it will be only £7OOO.

Mr. Ridler said, that the' Council had not told the-Department that it was going to use contract laboui’ in- ' stead of day labour. If it had, it might have' been possible to have made - some other arrangement. Cr. Boustridge: The- Council believed it--was going to get £25,000. Mr.-Webb: That amount was based on your statements alone. But the engineer thought the contract .system was better, and I do not say he was not right from the Council’s point of view. On the. other hand, the Government’s object was to find work for asinany men as possible. . Mr. A. Tyndall,' Under Secretary, Mines Department, said that the Borough engineer had quite rightly tried to de the job as cheaply and efficiently as possible. As a result, he had" saved £lO,OOO on. the job, but because of ’the agreement about the subsidy, the curious position was that the ratepayers, in spite of this saving, would have to find £5OOO more. On the other hand, if the men employed on a contract basis were put on a. day wage, the Council would probably . not get such a good return for their'money"' and it would cost both the Council and the Government more in the end. Mr. Webb repeated his offer to pay the 'subsidy of £2/10/- per man per wook in the meantime, Mr. Ridler said that in his opinion the Council had neither a. legal nor a moral claim on the Government. The Mayor said lie did not agree with Mr. Ridler’s statement that the I Council had no moral or legal claim. Mr. Webb: I bet you would not. contest it ip. Court. ; ; Ultimately-it was asrangeeP that -the Minister’s’ offer be accepted, on the understanding that, without any com-

mitment. when the work was completed, the question of any difference between the amount of the subsidy paid, and the sum of £25,000 mentioned be considered, in the light of the financial position and other circumstances then obtaining. -ji Before the conference ended,, the Mayor thanked Mr. Webb for his patient and courteous hearing.