THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1934 UNJUST DISTINCTIONS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 79, 15 March 1934, Page 6

THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1934 UNJUST DISTINCTIONS.

On another page of this issue will be found a telegraphic report of a discussion at the annual meeting of the Municipal Association that is of close interest to the people of Napier and Hastings and, indeed, to those of all the urban communities in Hawke’s Bay. This had reference to the very marked distinctions that have been made by the Unemployment Board in its allocations of relief funds. We are all pretty well aware how unjustly this operates so far as concerns Hawke’s Bay’s two main centres of population when compared, or contrasted, with the big cities. But it is not so generally understood how it extends also as among towns in which populations and living conditions are fairly comparable. Figures cited in the message will, however, open the eyes of our readers to this and probably occasion some wonder as to the grounds upon which these differences in treatment can be justified. Nor is it at all likely that the attitude adopted by the representatives of the more favoured municipalities will tend to allay the feeling of dissatisfaction, indeed of just resentment, that has been aroused. Headed apparently by the Mayor of Wellington, they have declined to take any part in the deputation that is to wait on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment to lay before them the case for a more equitable apportionment of available funds. They have in effect said that they are quite content with what they arc themselves getting and that they , leave those who are not so fori ' tunately placed to fight for themselves. This certainly seems to be a very strange stand to be taken up by a majority at. an assembly that is presumably held ’ with a view to promoting the j welfare of all the communities, I big and little, represented at it ' It also suggests very strongly that those who withhold their countenance to the deputation are fully conscious of the discrimination made in their favour and are only afraid that anything may be done that will bring about its discontinuance. It also seems to indicate pretty clearly that they have nothing much to say in defence of the situation that has been created and so | leave the Ministers to make for 1 them what explanation they may. i So far as concerns any argu | ments in this direction put for I ward at yesterday’s meeting they cannot but be regarded as being | entirely unconvincing. It may I possibly he lhat the cost of living is somewhat higher in the big ~ centres than in the small, though, 1- taking all items into account, it I . this is by no means to t>e eon

ceded without demur. Rent seems to be the main factor upon which their contentions are based, but in this respect it may well be asked why the landlords of, say, Wellington should, for like living accommodation, be assisted to the collection of higher rents than those of any of the smaller towns. But, even so, rent alone cannot be held to account for the astonishing differences that are. made. In any event, the true effect is that in the smaller towns the calls that are made upon and responded to by the philanthropically inclined are relatively much heavier than in the cities, a position of which the big and wealthy communities should be heartily ashamed. To-morrow, or perhaps later on to-day, we may hear something of the result of the representations made to the Ministers. Whatever it may be, there will be no thanks due to the Municipal Association as a body.