THE 4a UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEME.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 July 1932, Page 3

THE 4a UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEME.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I sincerely regret that unwarranted aspersions have been cast upon the farmers of this community, and desire emphatically to dissociate myself from the remarks of the Mayor of Eltham, who did not voice the opinion of the majority of the Eltham Unemploy-r ment Committee. Mr. Bridger unfortunately rushes in ‘before he has mastered the true facts of the case. They are as follow: Under the No. 4a scheme there are 56 contracts entered into for single men. Of these the farmers are assisting as follows: One provides -board and lodging, and pays 15s per week; one provides board and lodging, and pays 12s 6d per week; twenty provide board and lodging, and pay 10s per week; twelve provide board and lodging, and pay os per week; eighteen provide board and lodging only; four pay 15s per week in lieu of board and lodging. Board and lodging is valued by the Unemployment Board at 15s per week, so that the man who- is getting board and lodging and 15s per week is getting value amounting to 30s from the farmer and 10s from the Unemployment Board. Even the provision of board and lodging is a big consideration to some farmers just now. These men are vastly better off than under the No. 5 scheme, where single men are entitled to two days a week at 9s per day for three weeks out of four, and do not even get that very often. Anyone with a grain of commonsense must realise that it has not been possible to farm at a profit for the past year or more, and in view of financial conditions I am satisfied, that many farmers have strained a point to assist the country through a difficult position. I think it is deeply to be deplored that such an extravagant misrepresentation of fact should be broadcasted throughout the Dominion, and a foody of worthy settlers brought into into unmerited disrepute. I may-add that I have only had one

complaint from a worker under the No. 4a scheme, and the farmer was not granted another worker. Further, if anyone can prove to the committee that the scheme is being abused the committee can cancel the contract, but mere assertion is not sufficient.—l am, etc., A. TIPLADY. Eltham, July 16, 1062.