Mr Forbes and the Dole.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 145, 20 June 1931, Page 8

Mr Forbes and the Dole.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—lt is with much disgust one reads that Mr Forbes has reinstated the No. 6 unemployment scheme. These hasty actions of Mr Forbes discontinuing the scheme, and in the next breath reinstating it, make one wonder if he is trying to put school boy legislation across us. It simply shows he has absolutely no sympathy at all with the situation, as he wiped the scheme out, throwing the whole responsibility on the hospital and charitable institutions, after demanding some weeks back that these bodies should economise by so many thousands of pounds per annum. It simply shows he has never troubled to analyse the gravity of the situation. If a war was declared to-morrow the Forbes Government would find millions of pounds to send our boys and husbands as cannon fodder to an alleged “glorious death” on the battlefields. To-day our men and their dependents in thousands throughout New Zealand are starving, yet the Government cannot find one paltry million to enable them to get honest work. Mr Forbes made the statement that no man, woman or child in New Zealand would starve, yet to-day in our very midst they are starving. When Mr Forbes returned from England, he passed remarks about the demoralising effect of the “ dole ” in England, and that no “ dole ” would be paid in New Zealand unless worked for, and that we had much to be thankful for in New Zealand’s “ financial security.” Can Mr Forbes now prove his sweeping statement of New Zealand’s “financial security” by finding work for New Zealand’s thousands of starving people? It is a great pity we cannot get some of our members of Parliament, along with a few of our Citizens’ Association Councillors, on the No. 5 unemployment scheme on 9s and 12s 6d per day respectively, and I am sure it would be very interesting to note what sort of a moral, or rather, I should say, what sort of a demoralising effect it would have upon them. The true extent of the unemployment is not really known, as there are so many working people in Christchurch, at least, who are standing by these lads, who through no fault of their own cannot get a decent living in this so-called “ God's own country.” If these people were to turn these young men out of their homes the Government would find it had a much larger responsibility than it has at present. It is to be hoped that Mr Forbes, in the present session of Parliament, will make adequate provision for all these young men and women who have been enticed to this country by false representations, and see that they at least can work for an adequate wage to honestly pay their way. It will be interesting to see what further taxation and inflictions will be put across us this next session of Parliament.—letc..