MR GOODFELLOW’S CRITICISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23953, 31 October 1939, Page 5

MR GOODFELLOW’S CRITICISM

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —I must thank “ Vigilant ” for his interest in my correspondence. He is in error, however, in assuming that I*have in any way suffered because of the Nationalist sharpshooters. On the contrary, the anonymous correspondents discreetly retired from the arena when their tactics were exposed. What "Vigilant’s” letter lacks in common sense is compensated fox by an overdose of vulgarity, and the paucity of logic is overshadowed by his familiarity with such places as gutters and public conveniences, as expressed in his own letter

He mentions that for the past four .years the people of the Dominion have been oppressed in a worse form than Nazism even contemplated. This distorted view demonstrates more than anything I can write how political partisanship has so effectively obscured “Vigilant’s” vision. Just in case his mind is a blank of happenings prior to the advent of the present Government, let me remind him that the Nationalist Government demonstrated its ideas of freedom by banning the Post and Telegraph Association, by suppressing the right of free speech among public servants, and by passing the Public Safety Conservation Act. This latter Act, with the highsounding name, was aimed at the starving unemployed, who were in revolt against the inhuman conditions imposed upon them by Mr Hamilton and his Government. It is difficult to understand why anyone should suggest, as your correspondent has suggested, that the Government regards the war as a "heaven sent gift” unless his opinion is based on the satisfaction which many of his Nationalist friends achieved when they lined their pockets at the expense of the soldiers and the State in the last war. “ Vigilant” is well behind the times when he asks when the benefits under the Social Security Act are to commence. Had he been better informed he would have known that hospital, maternity, invalidity, orphans, age and family allowances, etc, have been in operation for some time and these benefits contrast favourably with the lack of benefits for the Is in the £ tax levied by Mr Hamilton’s Government. In conclusion, I do not begrudge “Vigilant” the hollow satisfaction of a pen victory A victory in votes is more important and 530,000 electors declared against the Nationalist Party at the last election. —I am. etc.. Elector. October 28.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—" Elector ” evidently is one who reached adolescent age during the world-wide depression, and regards depression conditions as existing standards for the past 50 years. As ms memory obviously does not extend to the years before 1930 I would point out to “Elector” that conditions from 1922 to 1929 were better than they have ever been since. Wages were free of ‘‘dole’* and “tax*; foodstuffs were cheap and practically tax-free; petrol was cheap; work was plentiful; unemployment was unknown, and this under the Massey, Coates and Ward Governments Unfortunately with the passing of the depression and the return of good export prices, at the stage when private industry was again beginning to develop, the Savage Government came into power and perpetuated the depression taxation, strangled private industry and so created a permanent staff of unemployed of whom 20,000 are on public works, the' rest under the charge of the Employment Promotion Department at an annual cost of £7,000,000 The 15 per cent, wage cuts during depression years were simultaneously accompanied by a 20 per cent, drop in the cost of living The 5 per cent, wage cut imposed by the present Government is accompanied by a. sharp increase in the cost of living. The ■Social Security scheme as quoted by “ Elector" is correct. Scheme is exactly the word. ‘ Swindle ‘ would be a little too revealing. We are receiving approximately 2C per cent, of the benefits promised Briefly, it was a •‘scheme” to tax wages and the “ mugs ” fell for it Practically al. the promised benefits are still “in the air,” and appear likely to remain in that state of suspended animation.

The question of Mr Sterling’s salary has been often quoted If Mr Sterling, however as general manager of the railways capitalised at £58,000,000. received £3500 per annum. will “Elector” inform us how much above the basic wage “Scrim” is entitled to as manager of a concern capitalised at £200,000, or was it that, judged by “Scrim’s” salary, Mr Sterling was grossly underpaid Finally I should like to know why ome of my hardearned money, confiscated by the taxation authorities, was given to “ Scrim ” to joyride to the New York World Fair?' Was this “Scrim’s” reward for his radio antics prior to the last election?—l am, etc., Working Man. Musselburgh, October 28.