MUNICIPAL FINANCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23542, 4 July 1938, Page 7

MUNICIPAL FINANCE

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l would like you to correct one or two errors that crept into your report of my meeting last Monday night at the Burns Hall. In the Special Works Fund of the budget on the expenditure side you show an item “hose tap £3500.', This item is superfluous, and should' not appear at all. It was not shown on my printed circular. Also, I did not say that the Gas Department showed a profit of £1634 a week. Thk. should read the Electric Power and Light Department.

There is just one other item ol importance that was left out of the report, either inadvertently or through lack of space. The accusation against the Labour Council was that money that should have gone into renewal funds was used by it for the relief of the unemployed when the Government had a national fund for the purpose, thus taxing the people twice.

This argument was repeated parrotlike by many anti-Labour papers, and has been given by some as the chief reason for the defeat cf the Labour Council. The Mayor (Mr Allen) and the Citizens’ Association definitely stated that the Labour Council was the first to institute this “ unsound ” and “ unjustified ” system, and was very loyally suported by the press, as well as a large number of working class voters. The fact that the anti-Labour councils instituted this system of using renewal fund money for relief of unemployment at starvation wages was not mentioned. From 1932 to 1935 this was a common practice. In 1932 a sum of £12,000, in 1933, £10,000: in 1934, £13,750; and in 1935, £4o7l—altogether £39,821 which should have gone to renewal funds—was used for the relief of unemployment at a time when the Government of the day had a national fund raised by taxation for relief of unemployment. A practice that was a virtue when carried on by anti-Labour is a financial sin when continued by a Labour council. What the Labour Council did openly, its predecessors did sub rosa.—l am, etc, July 2. M. Silverstone.