EXTENSION OF SUBSIDY SCHEME

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 29 March 1935, Page 6

EXTENSION OF SUBSIDY SCHEME

The announcement by the ActingMinister of Employment of an extension of the building subsidy can be welcomed, despite the criticism that has been aimed at this measure in the past. Much of this criticism has been shortsighted; it has been, for the most part, along the line that individuals and organisations that could well afford to pay to have work done have been subsidised out of the Unemployment Fund, while many unemployed dependent upon that fund have continued to live on inadequate allowances. When that criticism is made by people who have been on relief for months or years it can be understood; but surely a wider view

can be "expected from other sections of the community. No matter how big the Unemployment Fund might be nor how generous its provisions, it would be still inadequate in the eyes of some people as long as others were getting “something for nothing’’ in the way of a building subsidy. The latter scheme is not designed to help concerns which do not need the help, but is for the express purpose of stimulating real industry, as distinct from the make-belief industry which all too often is the only result of the institution of ‘‘ relief works. ’ ’ The Minister points out that the No. 12 house-building scheme has not only resulted in 3079 new dwellings being built with the aid of individually small subsidies,' but .3061 .baths, 766 Electric stoves and 789 gas stoves, in addition to many other smaller articles, have been supplied by New Zealand manufacturers without subsidy. It can thus be seen how the subsidy acts as a stimulus to industry. The 'subsidy, which is not. huge, encourages in the first place--some people to spend money which they would otherwise have kept locked up and out of circulation; as soon as they start to spend money others are set to work, supplying mainly materials which are not subsidised. This stimulation of real work must be admitted to be healthier than No. 5 relief work, whereby men are parcelled out two or three days’ labour per week on works which are often of doubtful value and are almost invariably carried out by inefficient methods. If the Unemployment Board’s £4,000,000 a year could be all spent on the stimulation of real industry to such good effect as to leave no need for other relief schemes, and particularly the No. 5. Scheme, it would be a grand thing for the unemployed, for industry and for the country generally. Of course that is impracticable ; there will always be a section of the unemployed who cannot be benefited in that way and they have to be provided for by other means, but such a goal is at least logically desirable.