STANDARD RATES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20204, 15 January 1934, Page 8

STANDARD RATES.

Unemployment Committee’s Scheme. LOCAL BODY WORKS. The Citizens’ Unemployment Committee, at its meeting to-day, decided to set up a sub-committee to supply to the Unemployment Board a list of public and local body works in Canterbury that could be developed by unemployed labour, the works to be subsidised and the men paid at standard rates of wages. The committee at its meeting on December 18 passed a resolution stating that it was strongly of the opinion that it was essential to reduce t" number of men employed in the No. 5 scheme as early as possible. It asked the Unemployment Board, in conjunction with the Public Works Department, to consider the possibility of payment of standard rates on certain public'works to be approved by the Unemployment Board and that Government departments and local, bodies be invited to forward a list of suitable works to the board. The resolution also asked that the sustenance provisions of the Unemployment Act be put into operation as far as unemployable men were concerned. The Commissioner of Unemployment (Mr G. C. Godfrey), in acknowledging the resolution, said that the Board had already made arrangements to review the position early this year with a view to reducing the numbers on the No. 5 scheme. He thanked the committee for its suggestion, for the board appreciated any practical suggestion which might possibly reduce the drain on the board. Auckland Follows. Mr W. E. Leadley said that a fortnight after the Christchurch committee had carried its resolution, virtually the same decision was reached by a conference in Auckland. The board had now started to pay sustenance to certain classes of men in Auckland and Wellington. Mr W. W. Scarff said that the board was hampered by a lot of men who would never have got work had it not been for the institution of relief work. He could recall six cases where the men were unemployable. If the willing workers were given a fair thing, better results would be obtained. The chairman (Mr E. H. Andrews) said that there must be a certain proportion of that class of man about.

Mr Scarff: A good many of these men are really hospital cases. Mr J. S. Barnett pointed out that if they were taken off the unemployment lists they would become a charge on the local taxpayers, as they would have to receive aid from the hospital hoard. Mr W. E. Leadley said that he had maintained all along that the sustenance clauses of the Unemployment Act should be applied. The amount of sustenance paid at present in Auckland and Wellington did not come up to the amount stipulated in the Act. Subsidies Urged. Mr Barnett said that he wondered if the committee would be prepared to go further and give specified examples of where the board could help local bodies. Recently the Christchurch City Council had raised £22,000 to do certain roading works. Why could not that loan be subsidised and enable the council to lay down a greater length of roadway and give employment to a larger number of men, paying them at standard rates of wages? The Unemployment Board had been subsidising private citizens and public companies to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and if it was prepared to help these people, why could it not assist public bodies? Replying to Mr W. J. Walter, Mr Barnett said that he would not suggest that the City Council should have a monopoly of the benefits of his scheme. Mr Leadley said that Mr Barnett’s scheme should be advanced by appointing a sub-committee consisting of Messrs Andrews, Barnett, Walter and Scarff to prepare a list of public works that could be carried out immediately, the work to be subsidised by the board and paid for at standard rates. If such a concrete scheme were put forward, the board could give consideration to it.

Mr Walter asked if all the other local bodies in Canterbury should also be consulted. There was the Paparua County Council, the New Brighton Borough Council, the Tramway Board and the Drainage Board to be considered. The chairman said that that was a matter for the committee. Mr A. Peverill said that under the building subsidy scheme men who had been in work for years had had their wages subsidised. This was wrong, and should not be allowed to continue. On Mr Leadley’s motion Mr Barnett’s scheme was adopted, Messrs J. W. Beanland and G. Maginness being added to the committee, which was given “ power to add and power to act.”