Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MONEY RETURNED.

: Sum of £2300 Not Spent on Relief. CITY COUNCILS POSITION. Since April 1 a sum of £2300 allocated to Christchurch by the Unemployment Board has been returned to Wellington owing to the not being expend--1 ed by any local body. ’ A statement that the City Council’s . practice of subsidising relief rates had t prevented that sum being spent in , Christchurch was made by Councillor 3 E. 11. Andrews at the meeting of the . council last night. The statement was j contradicted by the Mayor (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.) and Councillor J. M’Combs, and an explanation of the position was made by Councillor J. W . Bcanland. f Councillor Andrews said that the i £2300 could have provided work for - many more men. He questioned i j whether the council could not employ -'men without giving a subsidy on i I wages. It was necessary to make a i j strong effort to employ more men, or i | the city’s allocation from the board might > j be reduced if part of it were regularlv I returned to Wellington. -} The Mayor: I don't think that has - j anything to do with the subsidy quesI I tion. That is another matter. Councillor Andrews: I believe I am right in saying that the two matters are closely connected. 1 am in posses- [ sion of the facts, and I take it that the . council cannot find the amount of the subsidy to employ more men. I Councillor J. M’Combs. M.P.: You . ‘‘take it.” You should find out. The Mayor stated that on the only , occasion on which the council had been asked to employ more men, it had done Councillor Beanland explained that ja rule of the Unemployment Board had been that when a local body overspent its allocation it had to pav the difj ference. I A denial of the statement that the j money had been returned because the { council could not find the amount of j | its usual subsidy was given by Coun- ! rill or J. M’Combs. The board now renl- ! ised its mistake in insisting on the rule I j concerning over-spending of the alloca- ! I lion, and had rescinded the rule. The j position was created through a wrong 1 policy of the board.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19320823.2.53

Bibliographic details

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 539, 23 August 1932, Page 5

Word Count
376

MONEY RETURNED. Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 539, 23 August 1932, Page 5

MONEY RETURNED. Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 539, 23 August 1932, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert