Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 28 July 1938, Page 6

Readers Write

I hope that our worthy borough councillors will not think me impertinent if I ask them through the medium

of your columns, whether we are not treating unfairly one of cur public servants? I refer to the meter reader in the Electricity Department. The rapid growth of the town, so apparent to all, and particularly to those whose vocations demand frequent visits to all parts of it, seems to me to render the task of even a bi-monthly visit to every house in it utterly beyond the capacity of one man, working reasonable hours. For this reason, has not the time come when a second reader should be appointed? Anyhow, I feel that many would like to be assured that the present holder of the office is not overworked. —H. T. STEELE.

BOROUGH METER READER.

I am writing in the hope that some | nore mathematical brain than mine ? vill be able to explain the present \ memployment situation in this coun-|

UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES.

try. .Disregarding rival politicians’ conflicting statements as to the number of unemployed there may or may not have been in 1935, and coming to the present year, we find official statements to the effect that unemployment in New Zealand is down to the irreducible minimum. The published figures show that this minimum must be about 16,000, of whom 8000 are classed as unemployable and are on sustenance. Budget figures show that £5,100,000

was collected last year for unemployment relief, and the amount spent was £4,239,000. Of the expenditure, £1,349,162 was spent on sustenance, presumably on the unemployables. For this year, unemployment taxation is estimated to yield £5,377,000 which, together with balances brought forward, will make available the sum of £6,535,890 for the relief of unemployment. Apart from the fact that £6,500,000 for the relief of unemployment in a country with 'a population of one and a-half million which has solved the unemployment problem seems a bit generous, the real puzzle arises when we consider the Government’s social security proposals. We are told that when the National health and superannuation scheme comes into operation next year, the present unemployment tax of 8d in the £ will be abolished and will be replaced by a “Social Security” contribution of 1/ in the £. The fund created by this contribution is to be used for the payment of increased pension benefits and medical attention, and provision is made lor the payment of about £1,300 009 sustenance, presumably for the 8000 unemployables. But what of the other unemployed? Apart from sustenance, it is costing nearly £3,000,000 a year to support them at present. Next year this money is going to be spent on pensions and medical benefits. \We are told unemployment is down to the minimum; therefore the expenditure is also down to the minimum. Is there to be a new tax for unemployment?

This year’s Public Works expenditure is fixed at £20,000,000, of which £14,000,000 is to be borrowed. Will next year’s Public Works vote be £23,000,000, of which £17,000,000 will have to be borrowed? I would be glad if someone can disentangle this for me.—“PUZZLED.”