PENSIONERS’ EARNINGS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27241, 18 November 1949, Page 9

PENSIONERS’ EARNINGS

Sir, —The concerted and sustained attacks by Labour candidates and by correspondents in your columns upon this plank in the National Party policy shows how much it is appreciated by the Labour Party as one likely to appeal to electors. Prepared questions and answers are used at their public meetings, and in every case an effort is made to show that it is the desire of the .National Party to force widows and old people into “ scrubbing and cleaning.” Vague hints are also being made about “ direction ’ ’of pensioners into domestic service. Thousands of women throughout New Zealand are only too glad to augment their incomes by doing domestic work, which is just as dignified a job as any other and more useful to the communnity than that of trades union secretary. Unfortunately, many of these women find that they are unable to accept employment without affecting their social security benefits. The National Party plan will remove this bar. but the choice will still be with the individual as to whether or not they work. Those likely to be affected by this new proposal are advised to think it out and not be scared by the usual “ fear bogey ” which is being set up by the Socialists. — I am, etc., Dan.

Sir,—Under the heading " Unworthy Tactics ” you continue your anti-Labour propaganda. The fact that on numerous occasions you yourself, and a number of anonymous correspondents, have made veiled insinuations and cheap-jack remarks about our Ministers and members of Parliament, is apparently good tactics, because we have yet to read where you condemned these attacks. The young mothers whom the National Party pretend to be so concerned about received scant consideration when they were in office. The consideration they received from the Nationalists was a shortage of food and clothing. Mr Jones was on sound ground when he exposed the National Party's real objective—i.e., to provide elderly women as domestics for the more fortunate people in our community. Labour’s legislation has not prevented people over 60 years from working, as stated by you. There are over 222,000 people in this country 60 years and over, and of this number only 116,000 are receiving the age benefit. Of the 116,000 mentioned, a number are receiving only part pensions and are working part time. It is quite apparent now that the Nationalists, notwithstanding their endeavours to cover up, are still opposed to social security, as they were when it was first introduced. On that occasion it was stigmatised by the Leader of the Opposition as " applied lunacy.’’—l am, etc., T. P.

Sir,—Great play is made of the National Party suggestion of the extra 2s 6d a week for pensioners working after 60. Sneers are poured on the domestic service part. May it be pointed out quite clearly that no oldish person is asked to take a full-time or even part-time job unless they are fit to do so? To count up the pension that could be received from 60 onwards is merely dodging the point. We are not all prepared to lie down from that age onwards. Many are prepared to carry on, and good luck to them.

A Labour candidate talks of the 20,000 jobs available. Naturally, as the Government has slowed down on immigration. And there are many mushroom industries that could be scrapped. Take crockery for a good example. Britain could give us plenty, with quality and not high priced. The Government has preferred to force inferior New Zealand makes on us. The deliberate intention is to keep labour short and so force employers to pay top wages to inefficient workmen. We see this everywhere. This, of course, is good Socialism. The Socialists are busy preaching the fear complex to-day, but the good workman has nothing to be afraid of from a National Government. It is only the loafer, the scrounger and the troublemaker who will have to alter his ways. Strange that Labour is “ playing down ” the Socialist ideology. Karl Marx and Lenin used the words Socialism and Communism Interchangeably. They at least were honest in their outlook. The good old " means of production, distribution and exchange,” so loudly proclaimed by our Socialists for so long, is in the ice chest till the election is over. Even Mr Connolly is not talking about the 97 per cent. Socialism New Zealand has still to get. But'the 3 per cent, we have had Is more than enough.—l am, etc., Worker.

Sir, —If “ Young Sue ” had listened intelligently to Mr Holland’s speech she would not have been in such a hurry to make untrue accusations. It was never suggested that women pensioners should be ” condemned ” to do housework. What Mr Holland said was that if any woman cared to help some over-burdened housewife she should be able to do so without it affecting her pension or age benefit. There are probably many women who would be only too pleased to give assistance, if only for a few hours a day, as much for the company as for the extra money they could earn. Women living in rooms or a house by themselves could be very homely and would welcome the daily contact and so it would be equally beneficial. As far as industry “ crying out for women workers ” is concerned, I, a housewife, know that I would very much prefer working in a home rather than in some noisy factory where one may have to stand all day. No Nationalist has been condemning women pensioners to hard work. ‘‘.Young Sue’ should think before she rushes into print.—l am, etc.. Housewife.