BRIGHTON UNEMPLOYED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21733, 26 August 1932, Page 5

BRIGHTON UNEMPLOYED

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I shall be glad if you will inform me on the following points relative to the establishment of our Brighton Unemployment Committee. (1) What machinery or procedure was set out by the legislature for the election, appointment, and official recognition of local unemployment committees generally?

(2) Are committees in the first instance appointed at a properly convened public meeting of residents and ratepayers of the district desiring representation? (3) Was a meeting of Brighton residents publicly advertised and convened for the expressed purpose of appointing our local committee?

(4) Is the personnel or voting body of any such meeting limited to residents only or are week-enders and people actually resident outside the Brighton area or district permitted also to vote on the choice and appointment of the committee?

(5) Is the Brighton committee merely a busy-body group of self-appointed and over-zealous officials or has it the standing and official cognisance of constitutional representation ?

As a farmer resident of Brighton 1 am entitled to criticise and examine the status of .our committee and in the light of my recent experiences, in my efforts to secure unemployed labour for the purpose of eradicating noxious weeds on my farm, combined with a natural desire to do what I can to provide sane or productive employment for our local unemployed, I am more than entitled to indicate the unbusinesslike, wasteful, and dismaying administration of the work and funds which the committee apparently controls. Whether or not personal feelings ‘ and prejudices are permitted by the committee to obtrude upon a proper apprepiatlon of the obligations of an importial representative _ body, the following facts may be sufficient to arrive at a conclusivfe decision:—

(I) By approaching the Taieri County works inspector I secured the services of two local men and provided v them with work on my farm for four days in the week. These men had prior to this been engaged on road work,'but the inspector said he had more men than he required. On my farm they were provided with more congenial and satisfying employment. Each had a family of four children dependent on them 1 . At the end of the : ,first week the men were taken off by the inspector, and on my asking for an explanation, I received the evasive reply that he was merely carrying out instructions from headquarters. Result, these men were again unemployed and had to stand down for a week.

(2) Money has been expended, literally poured out, to the tune of hundreds of pounds, on wasteful and unnecessary work on the Domain at Brighton. A track has been formed on the Domain at a cost of between £2OO and £3OO. which I could have done myself for no more than a £5 note and been well paid at that. (4) Our local postmaster is actually in charge, if you please, of the gang at work on the Domain, and is, to boot, certifying officer to the Unemployment Board. What a strange administration of public affairs when a civil servant may serve/ many master's!

(5) At least 50 farmers in Brighton district are waiting for the services of the unemployed in reproductive work, while the wasteful expenditure of public money goes on in merry abandon. Why worry when the Domain pettily profits while the country sinks?

Can you wonder that 1 am thoroughly disgusted, that I have applied direct to headquarters for the services of the unemployed. and that I have absolutely no confidence in the administration of our apparently self-elected committee. One word more. The Unemployment Committee of nine members has included in its group five members of the Domain Board, so that the Domain Board has a majority representation and control of the Unemployment Committee. Here is a fine method of public finance indeed, when the Domain Board can swing the opera-