RELIEF MONEY FOR RUGBY

Taranaki Daily News, 31 January 1931, Page 5

RELIEF MONEY FOR RUGBY

COMMITTEE’S ACTION EXPLAINED.

NEW PLYMOUTH £l2OO DISCUSSED.

‘Ts there any minute about the granting of £l2OO to the Rugby Uiiioh?” asked Mr. S. Flood following the reading of the minutes at the meeting of the executive of the North Taranaki Unemployment Committee last night. “No,” said the chairman (Mr. P. E. Staipton). He explained the position on similar-lines, to the interview with Mr. J. McLeod, chairman of the union, published in the Daily News on Tuesday.

Mr. Flood said the chairman of the union had stated the union could have done the work better with scoops and steam shovels. That seemed to indicate the subsidy money was wasted on such work. There was scope in the town for. the £l2OO without giving it to the Rugby Union.

Mr. H. V. S. Griffiths said it seemed there had been a misconception,about the matter. The funds available to the committee were . practically depleted when the Rugby Union, was approached by .him to do the work under the unemployment scheme. By agreeing to do so tlie union made £2400 available. . The committee had had no money in sight and it was a question of keeping the men at work. The union’s money would not have been spent at that time, unless the union had been urged by the committee. Mr. Flood said a subsidy had been refused for Te Mete Park and the beaches could not obtain money for work. It seemed it was a case of “to him that hath shall be given.” Mr. Stainton said lie had heard Mr. J. Roberts had agreed that under the circumstances the committee had done the right thing. The committee had no desire to .see the union benefit by one penny and the union would not benefit by one penny. There had been no other work available at the time and the com.mittee had no . money, to spend. The engineer had scoured the town for work and the union by its action had provided money for 60 or 70 men for about three months, instead of for about 20 with tractors. He had been the criticism, as the town was getting double the amount spent in it. The objection really was that it was bein-g spent on private property, instead of public property, according to the resolution of the Workers’ Council meeting. But he pointed out that the ground would .be a park for the town when football was not being played it would be a free park for the children and people of Westown. ( Mr. Flood said be had no axe to grind, but there were small societies in the town that could not get work done on their reserves because they had no money to earn subsdies. It seemed the rich people got the subsidies and next they would find a body like the racing club getting a subsidy. He objected strongly to the policy of the committee. i Mr. Stainton said the union had proved definitely it could have had the work done under £l2OO by machinery. Mr. Flood would agree a great deal of unemployment work in the borough had been work made for the purpose. Only recently the union’s engineer had advised it not to accept' the subsidy as it would get better results the other way. Mr. Flood: The point I wish to make is that these men should have been put on to other work of more benefit to the public. Mr. Staintpn: But we had no money. The dismissal of certain men from the Rugby Union undertaking was referred to a disputes committee comprising Messrs. Stainton and Flood.