BUILDING SUBSIDY.

Hutt News, Volume 6, Issue 49, 16 May 1934, Page 5

BUILDING SUBSIDY.

SHOULD BE RESTORED. At Monday's Council meeting a letter was received from the Mayor of Palmerston North, asking Council to support resolutions carried at a publicmeeting in that town protesting against the present rates of relief pay and putting into operation the payment of sustenance at the reduced rates in place of employment at the old rates. Cr. G-rierson moved that the necessary support be given. Cr. Campbell said that whilst he. fully realized that good work had been done by the Unemployment Board, he regretted the building subsidy, had not been continued- He considered mistakes had been made in granting the subsidy to certain large contracts, but these errors could be guarded against in the future, He maintained that the subsidy should be reintroduced to encourage the building of home of from £000 to £1000. There were ten thousand of such homes wanted to-day. The building trade was the main industry iu any town in New Zealand to-day and would do more to restore prosperity than any other industry. He hoped that Council would take steps to urge the Unemployment Board to restore the building subsidy. After a full discussion Cr. Campbell's motion that the Unemployment- Board lie urged to put into operation the build ing subsidv scheme for houses of £000 to £1500 was earned, with Crs, Grierson and Napier dissenting

The Mayor said tliat it was appalling to think of sustenance being introduced as proposed. There had como uuder-his notice a case of a man with seven dependants whose maximum relief wage was 37/0, out of whicii before lie received it 17/0 was deducted as rent, to be paid to the State Advances Department. The 20/- remaining, together with a family allowance of 4/made an average of 3/- per head per week for food l , clothing and fuel. If sustenance on the basis of the Palnicrston North figures were introduced this man would receive in every fourth week 2/(5 net after the rent had been deducted, which, with the family allow ance, would leave 0/0 for the eight people. la this case the mother and one child were sick. In seconding the motion, Cr. Andeiaon said that he would not put any limit on the subsidy but allow it to operato in the case of oilier work such as building railways, roads, etc-. A deputation consisting of the MilyoiyCrs. Campbell, Asliton and Ginger was appointed to wait upon the Lneniployment Board. 4