AID TO INDUSTRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21249, 1 August 1932, Page 11

AID TO INDUSTRY

SUBSIDY BUILDING SCHEME APPLICATIONS NUMBER 120 £65,000 PAYABLE IN WAGES An explanation of the Government's building subsidy scheme and replies to criticisms that have been voiced since the system came into operation were given by Mr. Walter Bromley, a member of the Unemployment Board, at an allied building industries convention in Wellington last Friday. Mr. Bromley said that in January or February the Minister of Employment, Mr. Coates, had expressed to members of the board the opinion that some of the available funds should go toward the development of secondary industries. As a result a scheme had been devised and circulated in secondary industrial circles for comment and criticism. Later it becamo obvious that most serious stagnation existed in the building industry, and it had been disclosed that half of the total number of men unemployed in Wellington had been associated with that and allied industries. It was then decided to concentrate on a schemo which would assist the rehabilitation of building trades. In putting forward its subsidy scheme, continued Mr. Bromley, the Unemployment Board had been impressed by the information from trade sources that approximately 65 per cent of the cost of a building represented wages earned on the job, at the sawmills and in transport. Loosening of Purse Strings Mr. Bromley said that since the inception of the scheme on July 1 and up to July 23, a total of 120 for subsidies from various parts of New Zealand had been approved by the board. The number of men affected by these applications was 358, and the amount of money involved in subsidy payments would be £9978. What was of still greater importance was that the total value of the buildings represented by the applications was £103,026. If information given to the board was correct, said Mr. Bromley, this meant that within the next 30 weeks £65,000 in wages would be paid somewhere or other in New Zealand, and if this building work were new then undoubtedly there had been a loosening of pure strings. Men were to bo put in jobs to which they were accustomed, rather than into relief work. They would be able, moreover, to draw full wages while they were there. Replying to criticisms that had been heard since the subsidy scheme came into operation, Mr. Bromley said that before the scheme had been launched architects, builders, contractors and trade unions had discussed it with the board. It could be claimed that every possible step had been taken in tho direction of bringing the scheme as near as possible to perfection. It had been said that builders would be obliged to dismiss their men, but this suggestion was untrue, for builders had told him they were going to carry on without tho subsidy.

Question of Patriotism "There is surely enough patriotism among the people of New Zealand to use the scheme only as it was designed to be used," said Mr. Bromley. "No real advantage is to bo gained by employing the scheme unfairly. If a man does so what lie pil.'ks up on the roundabouts ho will lose on the swings. If a job does not warrant an Unemployment Board subsidy—if it is a job that would have been carried out anyway—it is not playing the game to take advantage of the subsidy. To do that would be robbing the Government." Mr. Bromley emphasised the fact that the scheme was designed to continue only until December, or during the slack time of the building year. It might bo quite wrong to continue it in the summer time.