The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1932. AN UNSATISFACTORY POSITION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 139, 15 June 1932, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1932. AN UNSATISFACTORY POSITION

■"THE “CHBONICLE” had not long to wait for confirmation of its conclusion that taxes arc gathered in Wanganui to be given in grants elsewhere. While yesterday’s leading article was being framed Mr. Bromley, a member of the Unemployment Board, was telling a deputation of Wellington unemployed that “26,000 men in the country were from 25 to 50 per cent, worse off than men in the city.” Voices ch-.llenged the truth of the assertion, whereupon Mr. Coates inter, -ted: “You cannot challenge it. What Mr. Bromley says is t. ” Mr. Bromley then went on: “The statement may be unacceptable but it cannot be denied. To put the country workers on the same basis as the Wellington relief workers to-day would require £16,000 a week extra, which we have not got. That is why the scale is not published.” This statement by Mr. Bromley reveals that the Unemploynent Fund is being improperly and unwisely administered. It is improper to give to the unemployed of Wellington from 25 to 50 per cent, more than is given to the unemployed of Wanganui. A man in Wanganui is as much a citizen of New Zealand as is a man in Wellington. Each stands equal before the law; each pays similar taxes. Each therefore should stand equal in the benefits which the State has to confer. It would be interesting to know why this basis principle of good government has been so flagrantly violated in the administration of unemployment relief! This explanation should be demanded of the Government by the authorities in Wanganui. The unfairness of the present lack of a uniform system in the administration, of the Unemployment Relief Funds is twofold in its incidence; for not only do Wanganui taxpayers pay as much as the taxpayers living in Wellington but the deficiency in the amounts of relief money allocated to Wanganui throws an additional burden upon the ratepayers of the Wanganui Hospita Board district, because upon them falls the burden of the relief for unrelieved unemployed. In fine, it amounts to this: That the people of Wanganui are bearing a greater share of the burden than the people of Wellington, and the unemployed of the locality are receiving from 25 to 50 per cent, less than the unemployed of the larger cities. The natural tendency of such a policy, therefore, is to induce the mobile unemployed to migrate to the cities, where they swell the numbers of the workless and thus aggravate the very problem which is evidently “scaring seven bells” out of the Government. Such a condition of affairs cannot longer be tolerated. Public and semi-public bodies in the Wanganui district cannot be expected to tolerate a larger tax burden and a smaller benefit. The Chronicle warned the Government that the responsibility for the situation which is developing locally will be the Government’s alone. To-day when surmise has turned out to be fact, the warning must be repeated. The Government must see that the position in Wanganui is dealt with in a more equitable manner.