The Grey River Argus. MONDAY, June 12, 1933. NO. 10 SCHEME.

Grey River Argus, 12 June 1933, Page 4

The Grey River Argus. MONDAY, June 12, 1933. NO. 10 SCHEME.

The revival (if its No. 10 Scheme by the Unemployment Board, for the encouragement of building, on more liberal lines than those previously followed, should provide the means for a genuine and much needed stimulus to the timber tuade generally and what is of greater importance to the worker, the resumption of steadier production in the”sawmill and allied trades, which owing to the depression have suffered to a serious extent during the past three years, during which time the erection of other than buildings for urgent commercial purposes, has been reduced to the irredueable minimum point. The salient feature of the No. Scheme as it has been presented in its amended form is that the subsidy is equal to onethird of the award wages of all the workers engaged on. buildings against the old restriction which required that men should be engaged from the unemployment register and which, is now enpunged. The possibility of subsidising wages in subsidiary occupations such as joinery factories being considered will further enhance the proposals from the workers’ point of view, as well as those who will now be able to take advantage of a favourable condition for building such as this Dominion lias never previously had before it. Another point favouring the scheme is that it will give those who are experienced in the timber trade, right back to the feller of the trees in the bush, the opportunity to not only follow their rightfid occupation but to look forward with some assurance to the continuity of work and wages, which have for so long been the exception rather than the rule for the wage-earner for the prevailing conditions struck at the very basic necessity of industries—the demand. The project is liberal far beyond any scheme previously operated for the purpose of assisting the unemployed, and this is further emphasised in the proposal to pay up to fifty per cent, subsidy where men are employed on a dwelling not costing more than £651). The first plank in the scheme is that of revitalising a languishing and almost stagnant

industry—the timber industry. Il will be readily admitted that the timber industry has languished. No further proof of that is required than a brief survey of the position as it is known on the West Coast to-day where sawmillafter sawmill can be seen lying idle in all parts of the district, and once active sawmill areas have in. many cases become depopulated owing to no work. The gradual resumption of these sawmills would give an impetus to the spending power of the wageearner, who is recognised as a good spender. It would mean once again the freer spending of money and a general betterment of trade conditions which would enable those trades people, who have been having a struggle to keep going to make up their leeway and establish themeselves in a sound position again. So far as the West. Coast is concerned a general improvement in trade conditions could be looked for, but what is more important from a Dominion point is that the whole country would participate in any such improved trade. While on the matter of an improved outlook for the timber trade following a full advantage being taken of the No. 10 Scheme, it. is worth mentioning that the Sales Tax adds to the costs of production and has had a benumbing effect on the industry since the tax is applied to so much timber- used in it. Whatever prospect there is of a revival in the building <rade either with the Board’s subsidy or independent of it. it is bound to be affected by this charge on material used. The position is apparently this, that while funds derived from taxation are to be applied to stimulating the industry other taxation will be collected in consequence of a renewed activity in the trade which will actually act as a brake on the very revival the operation of the No. 10 Scheme is looked on to bring about. The position is certainly anomolous and a decision of the Government Io remove one barrier from the full fruition of the scheme, which, bears all the potential possibilities of easing up the difficult problem of unemployment under which the country is staggering would be welcome. Certainly the exemption of building material from the Sales Tax would affect the Consolidated revenue but against that there would be wisdom in the Government granting this measure or relief, thus reducing the cost of material as the Board proposes to aid in the labour cost of the building. The Sales Tax after all is only symptomatic and industry needs to be free of it if it is to revive when the opportunity offers. With a fair run under the No. 10 Scheme it may be that there is the opportunity for a revival of the timber trade which in the past has provided work for thousands of men, and could do so again were, the industry freed from the oppression of taxation.