RISING CHARGES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19454, 13 October 1937, Page 13

RISING CHARGES

UNEMPLOYMENT COSTS MINISTER CRITICISED ADMINISTRATION PROBLEM Criticism of the cost of unemployment administration in New Zealand is contained in a statement issued by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It is stated that the Government's estimates for this administration show extraordinary increases which the Government has not so far attempted to explain. "Last year," state the Associated Chambers, "the Minister of Labour claimed that the machinery of the Unemployment Board was unnecessary, that the Department of Labour was fully equipped to deal with the whole situation, and that by amalgamating the functions of the Department of Labour and the Unemployment Department under one head and as one united body, the work could be done much more economically and better than it had been done in the past. "At the end of the financial year 1935-36 there were 864 persons employed under the Unemployment Board machinery, and the cost of administration for that year was £200,844. These are the figures which the Minister meant were to be so much improved upon, but the following figures, showing the year, administrative costs, and the number of employees, in that order, demonstrate that the Minister's undertaking is not being carried outAdministrative No. of costs employees 1935-36 .. £200,844 864 1936-37 .. £259,946 1,047 1937-38 .. £328,433 1,174 "These figures, which cover both the employment promotion branch of the Department of Labour, and the employment taxation branch of the Land and Income Tax Department, show that the cost of unemployment administration in 1936-37 increased by £59,000, or 29 per cent, over 1935-36, while the cost for 1937-38, on the Government's estimate, represents an increase of £127,600, or 63.5 per cent, over 1935-36. The number of employees has been increased by 310, or 36 per cent. The cost of administration now absorbs the equivalent of three-quarters of the whole yield from the quarterly unemployment levy for last year."