LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32893, 17 April 1972, Page 12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(1) Letters to be considered for this column must not exceed 150 words. They should be on only one side of the paper; preferably typewritten, otherwise clearly written in Ink; and ample margins and space between lines should be left for convenience In sub-editing. (2) A legible signature and full address—not a P.O. box number — are required whether these are to be printed or not (31 The correspondent must say whether the letter has been or Is to be submitted elsewhere. <4> The editor cannot return or keep any letter not accepted for printing; nor does he undertake to acknowledge or enter into correspondence concerning tetters, although an acknowledgement will be made where this seems to be necessary or helpful. (51 As a general rule, correspondence on news Items in other publications, or carried on radio and television, is not acceptable. John T. Beauregard.—No space just now. Age benefit Sir, —From a married woman’s viewpoint, could I ask the Minister how he can justify the allowable income for a married couple applying for the age benefit? Surely a married couple who have raised their family accordingly to our social standards should be allowed a little extra allowable income above that of a single person. It would seem that the young woman who prefers not to marry will, under our proposed new benefits, be far better off financially both now and in her old age than her married counterpart, especially if she decides to have children. It seems ironic in these days of equality that a married woman is worth only $l3 at the end of her days—that is, if she intends to remain married until

death. Surely each partner in marriage is entitled to be treated as an individual when it comes to a matter of income allowance?—Yours, etc., HALF SHARE. March 23, 1972. [The Minister of Social Welfare (Mr Adams-Schnei-der) replies: “It is correct that persons classed as unmarried have an income exemption currently $l3 a week while married couples share a similar exemption. Those benefits which are payable subject to an income test are approved on the basis of need and it is not unreasonable to take the income of both parties of a married couple into account when determining their combined entitlement to benefit.' The benefit payable to a married couple is of course greater than that to a single person and if each party of a married couple had an income exemption of $l3 a week their combined total income by way of benefit and other income up to the exemption could in some cases exceed the wages of persons in full-time employment.”!

Unemployed teachers Sir, —On page 16 of “The Press,” Saturday, April 15, there is a report about unemployed teachers; op page 20 there is a report that Bumside High School has staffing problems. It is ironic that the department that trained those teachers is unable to use them to alleviate problems in its own schools. It is a waste of the trained teachers’ time, and a waste of money, to train these people to a high standard both academically and professionally, and then to have them employed in jobs totally unrelated to the skills they have

acquired. The problem has been recognised for some months now, and several feasible solutions have been suggested. Surely it is time that the Department of Education stopped wasting money and talent, and did something positive about improving the standard of the schools?— Yours, etc., HEATHER ROBERTS. April 16, 1972.

Museum archives Sir, —In the research section of the Public Library of New South Wales, Sydney, satchels and bags must be left with a custodian. A newcomer must then apply first for a reader’s ticket stating his qualifications and line of research. He signs his application as a “true statement,” agrees to abide by the library by-laws, and then has to find two “responsible persons” to vouch for him. If accepted as a reader he then has a fairly free run of the book-shelves but must make out signed applications for valuable books or manuscripts which should be returned to an issuing officer. The Alexander Turnbull and other New Zealand achival libraries are not quite so strict, but each has a good security system except the Canterbury Museum library, which appears to have none. Often, and for quite long periods, no attendant will be visible and there is not even a bell to summon one.— Yours, etc., RESEARCHER. April 11, 1972. [Dr Roger Duff, Director of the Canterbury Museum, replies as follows: "This correspondence has developed to the point where I can only regard ‘Researcher’ as hostile. If ‘Researcher* has enjoyed the privileges of our admittedly liberal library service he is ungrateful indeed to abuse the confidence placed in him. I now think the time has come for ‘Researcher* to demonstrate his sincerity and good faith by putting aside his disguise and making any further complaints to me in person.”] “Battleship Potemkin” Sir, —Eisenstein’s film is available to the public in Christchurch through the University of Canterbury Film Society. The last showing of this film by the society was about five years ago and I certainly agree that it should be shown again. It is the policy of the society to show a number of outstanding classics during each year, and the next special festival of films to be screened by the society will be of outstanding French classics, May 2 to May 5, and other great films wifi also be shown during the yeair. As well as the special festivals the society screens a major film each week, and to anyone interested in becoming -a member the secretary, c/o the University of Canterbury, will be happy to post the 1972 programme. Membership may be taken up by attending any screening, and many films may also be seen by guests at a small admission charge —Yours,- etc., MAURICE ASKEW, President, University of Canterbury Film Society. April 13, 1972. Podgorny in Turkey Sir,—lt is true that Podgomy represents an entirely new people but in exactly the opposite sense to that claimed by “A. B. Cedarian” and his Russian literary hero, Solzhenitsyn, a romantic reactionary nostalgically hankering for the old imperial past. “A. B. Cedarian” should reflect that Solzhenitsyn is hardly old enough to be a credible authority on the character of pre-revolutionary Russians, and besides these very same Russians, (friendly,

trusting, unselfish) were those who carried the Russian Revolution through to the successful conclusion which is so distasteful to Alexander Solzhenitsyn today. Who are getting glummer and glummer? The Russians who seized the opportunity presented to them by the Great War 1914-18 to rid themselves of their oppressors and exploiters, the Romanovs, the landed aristocracy and the capitalist class? Or the British, puerilely quipping their way through the same war, but who still today have their oppressors and ex- ; ploiters firmly astride their backs?—Yours, etc., M.C.H. April 15, 1972. 1914 expedition of the Aurora Sir, —With reference to current research being carried out by one of my colleagues and myself, I would be very pleased to hear from any of your readers who might be able to supply me with information or photographs relating to either James Paton, boatswain of the steam yacht Aurora or to Sir Ernest Shackleton’s trans-Antarctic expedition of 1914.-—Yours etc., W. H. S. DENNIS, Lecturer in Education, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin. April 13, 1972. Correspondence School jubilee Sir,—Please would you re- , mind readers that there is j still time for all interested ex- > pupils, parents, teachers and , friends of the Correspondence School to enrol for the golden jubilee celebrations to be held in Wellington from May 27 until June 1. Applications may be made direct to Box 2372 Wellington or phone Mrs L. V. Watson, 515-811 at 85 Memorial Avenue for full information. —Yours, etc., MRS P. IRVINE, Canterbury Representative, Ex-pupils’ Association. April 14, 1972. “This” and “that” Sir,—l wonder how many other people have noticed that we have a new speech fashion, the use of the word “this” in place of the word “that” In my opinion, to say "This is right” in answer to another person’s statement ,is utterly stupid as well as grammatically wrong, and yet I hear it on television and radio quite often.—Yours, etc., PHYLLIS McARA. April 14, 1972.