PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20821, 3 June 1939, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by oorrooponden** letters are welcome, hot for whose views we have no responsfhUlty. Correspondents are requested to ■write In Ink. It Is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good fair. Unless this rule is compiled with, their letters will not appear.

DOCTORS AND GOVERNMENT

(To the Editor) Sir, —The supporters of the Labour Party have been crying about the doctors in your columns for 6ome time past and have maintained that the medical men are on “strike.” This statement is as ridiculous as practically every other statement made by these blind followers of the poor party who are struggling hard to hide what a mess they have made of things. If J were a doctor 1 would be inclined to go on strike well and truly, as sections of the Labour community often do to get their owm w 7 ay, but I know that the medical men are too highly principled to adopt such a course. 1 am wandering, sir, Just what the Labour supporters do think of this socalled wonderful scheme of the Government. The latest regulations Issued as to when and how a doctor Is to be summoned should turn the remaining few in favour of the scheme well aw y from it. And what about paying in all this time with nothing in return.—l am, etc., AMUSED Hamilton, June 2.

INCONSIDERATE PEDESTRIANS

(To the Editor) Sir,—Show week has again demonstrated what appears to be a common fault with shoppers on Hamilton’s main street; that of standing about In groups in the busiest part of Victoria Street to the discomfiture of those other pedestrians who are vainly attempting to move In some direction at least. With the pavements as crowded as they arc at show time it is surelv not too much to ask that those wishing to hold convivial meetings on the footpath should keep near the kerb or somewhere out of the way of those walking to and fro. The other day I noticed a woman with a large-sized pram and presumably a group of admiring relative* on either side! The congestion caused can easily be imagined. Such actions can probably be attributed to thoughtlessness, a common complaint, but not an excuse.—l am. etc., BREATHING SPACE. Hamilton, June 1.

COST OF INSULATION

(To the Editor) Sir,—During the last few yean the Customs duties collected have amounted to 33 per cent of the value of the dutiable goods Imported. Thus our' dutiable imports, being first raised In price from 100 to 110 by freights and insurance, and from 110 to 146 by the duties charged, are, when landed, priced at 46 per cent above their world market values. If dutiable Imports cost wholesale firms 46 per oent more than their world market values it may be assumed that local manufactures, protected by the same duties, will aiso cost wholesale firms 46 per cent more than their world market values. On the other hand, when farmers sell their exports they must, by meeting the cost of freights and Insurance, sell at 10 per oent below world market values. Farmers sell at 90 and manufacturers at 1 46—a difference in the two price levels of 62 per cent. If this difference represents the amount required to balance the advantage primary production In New Zealand possesses over secondary’ production. It plainly means that the output per man in our primary industries is 62 per cent greater than the output per man in our factories. Our firing standards are determined by our output and the barter value of our exports. No change in our financial policy, no flood of money or bank credit, can raise our standards of living one hair’s breadth above the level fixed by the volume of goods we produce for our own consumption, plus the volume of goods wc purchase with our exports.

Hitherto our living standards have been determined chiefly by our farm output. If we are to radically change our economy and make our living standards dependent in far more substantial measure on factory output, and farm output is 62 per cent greater per head than factory’ output, how are our existing living standards to be maintained ?

Have our Labour legislators given us any satisfying answer to that question? Have they even given that question a moment's thought?—l am, etc., J. JOHNSTONE. Manurewa, June 2.

80CIAL SECURITY

(To the Editor) Sir,—There is one thing that I can say for the members of the Labour party, and that is that they are, at any rate / iovaj to their cause, poor though that cause may be. Here we are with every worker paying Is in every £1 he earns for social security and petting no benefits, and yet there has been no squeal. If the National Party had imposed this tax and was not paying out the benefits, what a howl there would be. I, and a number of others 1 know, have had occasion to call in doctors, and to send our wives to hospital, and we are paying dearly for that service owing to this irresponsible Government. Besides paying the hospital* and doctors we are paying our tax every week as well. Then again another friend of mine was unfortunately off sick, and a* social security is supposed to be operating, his firm would not give him sick pay. This can be understood, as the company has to pay social security tax on its profits, but the poor workman, who is also paying tax, is not paid by the Government for sick pay. This I know. The man had been off for five weeks and because he did not put in a claim until after the fourth week—because he was in bed and could not—he was told that payment* are not retrospective but only from when notified. As the recipient of the benefit has to personally apply for the payment I want to know how he can do it. This is just another example of the