SUPERVISION OF WORK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22138, 18 June 1935, Page 5

SUPERVISION OF WORK

UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECT REFUSAL BY THE BOARD Refusal by the Unemployment Board to pay supervision costs on the work ' suggested by the Waimakariri River Trust to give employment to 500 men was the basis of vigorous criticism of the board's policy by members of the Heathcote County Council at their last meeting in Christchurch. The opinion was expressed that the board's omission to pay supervision charges on works undertaken by local bodies had greatly decreased the ability of the local bodies to relieve unemployment. The council discussed a report by the chairman, Mr. W. W. Scarff, on an interview with the secretary of the Unemployment Board, Mr. A. J. Ridler, regarding suitable works to be undertaken under the No. 5 scheme. Mr. F. W. Freeman alleged that the board had not acted according' to statements made by Mr. Ridler at the recent conference of local bodies to consider means of absorbing unemployed in the metropolitan area. "You can see what happened to the Waimakariri River Trust, which made the only genuine offer after the conference," said Mr. Freeman. " All the local bodies in the metropolitan area obtained a rebuke and an affront to their endeavour to sort out_ this unemployment problem. It is hardly understandable." In spite of what was said at the conference, Mr. Freeman continued, when an ordinary application went through the smothering system of departmentalism caused it to be refused. The winter is nearly over now, and the matter should have been seen to three months aoo The men should have been at work with the extra 10s and under proper SU The unemployment fund is £900.000 in credit, he said. The board refused the application simply because it was afraid that every local body in .New Zealand would make the same request. What if they did?. ~ , The Chairman: The point was that tbe trust asked the board to do something: which it was not in tli© habit of doing. _ , , \n official of the Unemployment Board, spoken to by telephone from Christchurch, said that the board bad received telegrams of protest, and that the matter had attracted so much attention that it would probably be considered further by the Minister or Employment, the Hon. S. G. Smith, and by the board itself.