"OVER THE FENCE"

Waipa Post, Volume 44, Issue 3182, 26 May 1932, Page 4

"OVER THE FENCE"

SCHEME DISCUSSED BY LOCAL BODY.

Quite a little discussion took place at yesterday's meeting of the Waipa County Council when a letter was read from the Minister of Agriculture, advising that his Department had made arrangements with the Unemployment Board that all farmers making application for labour for the purpose of destroying noxious weeds wer© to be granted relief workers free of wages cost. Cr Livingstone said he believed this was not the actual position. The clerk said the letter was quite definite. He understood also that the Labour Departemnt desired to send a representative from Auckland to confer with the Council on the scheme of supplying i*elief workers to farmers for work " over the fence." He had replied, stating that the meeting would be held on 25th instant, but he was informed that the official could not visit Te Awamutu that day. Another date .for the conference was asked for.

Mr Grant then read the circular letter setting out the proposal, which mentioned, inter alia, that ratepayers could have men for development work and the Board would pay wages, collecting it after two years, in three equal payments in the third, fourth, and fifth years. He asked, however, if in the case of such a ratepayer eventually being unable to pay that change, would the Council have to pay, or would it have the amount deducted from its grants ? Cr Livingstone said the unemployment relief scheme was costing the Council about £SO to £7O per month for supervision, etc. He would not mind so much, but the whole county was paying that cost and only a few were benefiting. He thought the Department should " run the whole box of tricks " itself and leave the local bodies out of iu

The engineer said his two supervisors were very fully occupied on relief works, and he was not getting much from them for ordinary county purposes. Cr Livingstone: Yes., and the position will be worse if the idle week is dispensed with. Cr Peacocke thought the Department could simplify its scheme and pay the men at its office instead of a county official having to draw the money and pay it to the men on the 3°h. , Cr Clarke took the view that unemployment would be long continued. The County Council must do its part in absorbing the, available labour. The county did not bear the who'e cost, and therefore he felt it was getting value for its actual outlay. He suggested that a special supervisor might be engaged to relieve the county supervisors, who could then get m with their ordinary duties. Other counties Avere availing themselves of the scheme very fully, and he wondered whether Waipa could not do more. too. Cr Livingstone said his comment, was directed at the No. 5 scheme, known as " over the fence." Cr Clarke mentioned that his riding had to pay an account of over £lO for gum-boot's obtained for men engaged in drainage work in only one portion of the riding. The gum-boots might be utilised later on on other works, but the position so far was that the riding paid for them. Cr Livingstone said the unemployed would be with them for at least a year. He wanted to knew whether the men could be paid in Hamilton. Te Awamutu, and Cambridge without needing the attendance of the Council's supervisor. The engineer said the farmers employing' the labour were generally the worst offenders through failing to properly fill in the time-sheets necessary before payment was made. Eventually the Council's _ finance committee was asked to go into the matter and report to next meeting.