BUILDING SUBSIDY

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 630, 7 September 1933, Page 5

BUILDING SUBSIDY

tfress Assn.-

to be withdrawn HAS GIVEN TREMENDOUS STIMULUS TO INDUSTRY PURPOSE ACHIEVED

-By Telegraph — Copyright).

Wellington, Wednesday. . As from Tuesday next, no further applicatious for suhsidies under the Unemployment1 Board's No 10 building scheme will be considered by the board. In making this announcement to-night, the Minister of Emjployment (Hon. Adam Hamilton) observed: "The purpose of the re-introduction of the No. 10 scheme which has operated from June 1 was to provide a stimulus to the building trade which at that date had languished to an extent much greater than was the case when the building scheme was introduced last year. The total value of building permits issued in areas eov*ered by statistics issued for the month of April of this year, totalled only £76,000. That the object in view has been achieved by the action of the board in reviving the subsidy will be evident from the fact that for the three months during which the subsidy has been available, applications have been received covering a total building expenditure of £2,500,000. Over £800,000 a Month "This is at the rate of over £800,000 a month and compares more than favourably with the corresponding three months of 1926, a year during which building activity in New Zealand reached its highest peak. It should also be remembered that these figures do not include large sums to the expenditure of which the Government was committed for the purpose of carrying out public building. "It can be safely said that the introduction of the scheme has resulted in a decided acceleration in the building industry. At this point, the board feels that it is unnecessary. to continue to offer the subsidy as an inducement to further building. "In the three months, the total cost of the buildings for which application for subsidy has been made has exceeded the total value of the applications made last year by over one million pounds. "It must be remembered also that the continuation of the scheme will mean an increased liability to the Unemployment Fund. The benefit which should accrue to the public and to the workers in particular as a result of the subsidy, should however, far outweight the cost. "The decision to close the scheme will not affect applications already authorised and applications given approval will be honoured. Those applications at present under notice will be dealt with, as heretofore, on their merits. This will also apply to such further applications as may be lodged until September 12.