CIVIC PROJECTS IN NELSON

Southland Times, Issue 24499, 29 July 1941, Page 4

CIVIC PROJECTS IN NELSON

RETURNS DESCRIBED AS FARCICAL POTATO GROWING AND MUNICIPAL PIGGERY (Special) NELSON, July 28. Strong criticism of the poor returns from the Nelson City Council’s potatogrowing scheme and municipal piggery, for which subsidized unemployed labour under the No. 13 Scheme was engaged, was made in a letter received by the council from the local registrar of Social Security. Describing the results as farcical the letter disclosed that an expenditure of £1677 had been involved in producing a potato crop worth only £143. In his letter the registrar said that from the information available the financial statement of the potatogrowing scheme appeared to be: Council’s expenses, £llO/9/7; wages subsidy, £1566/12/10; produce sold or on hand, £143/10/6. In other words the expenditure of £1677/2/5 was incurred for a return of £143/10/6 which was farcical in its financial result if considered as an economic proposition. PIG-RAISING FAILURE “As for the pig-raising scheme,” continued the registrar, “it is noted that the city engineer does not propose to make any payments to the War Expenses Account until the capital costs amounting to £l5O have been recovered in approximately 12 months’ time, after which it is anticipated that the War Expenses Fund will benefit to the extent of from £lO to £l5 per month. When it is realized that the wages cost at present is over £6O per month, this scheme also is far from being an economic proposition. “The inference drawn from the above is that the inadequate return from the scheme upon which men were employed at award wages of £5/1/8 per week for over eight months of the year does not appear to warrant a renewal of the arrangement during the current financial year. “You will realize that the Government is entitled to expect a reasonable labour output in return for wages paid at award rates, and it appears evident that this has not been the case regarding the men employed on the two schemes conducted by your council. “It has been decided therefore that if the scheme is to be renewed at all this year, (a) the methods of administration and supervision employed by your council should be considerably improved, and (b) that only men capable of and willing to do a reasonable amount of work should be employed.”

The letter was referred to the Finance Committee.