COST OF LIVING BONUS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 05, Issue 56, 22 May 1942, Page 4

COST OF LIVING BONUS

Sir,—Ycur correspondent, Mr Bradsliaw, goes off at a tangent when he says I have • not given a thought to the consumers. That point of view did not come into l the question. It appeared to be from the report of the County Council meeting that * the Council desired that all wages should receive a 5 per cent, risa in place of the decision of the Arbitration Court to give the rise of 5 per cent to all, subject to a limit of jj^' 5/-, i.e. that the Council consideredAh that a man on £20 per week should get £1 per week increase, and l the man of £5 per week should receive only 5/- per week. Usually the man. on £5 per week rears the family, and he is the one most in need of the cost of living bonus. lam in agreement with l Mr Brad- / shaw that the consumer has not been: considered in this method of granting the bonus. A better method would have been an increase in the family allowance. I have been informed that a minority section of the Government favoured this instead of a wage bonus. This would have been more satisfactory, and would not have necessitated other increases. I notice Mr Bradshaw's friend, the Leader of the Opposition, had no constructive suggestion to make in order to help the man with, a consumer family. Neither has he and his friend any more democratic way of forming a Government representative of the people of New Zealand. Giving the Leader of the position the right to select himself And some of his friends to Cabinet will not necessarily improve the Cabinet or make it more representative of the voice of the people. The people of New Zealand' affirmed - i in 1935 that they wanted no more starvation wages, and were more emphatic in 1938. Yours etc.. RANK AND FILE. V