REHABILITATION AFFAIRS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3258, 3 May 1943, Page 5

REHABILITATION AFFAIRS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —The comment preceding the motion passed by the annual meeting of the Paeroa and Hauraki Plains R.S.A. concerning the appointment of the Thames rehabilitation committee reported on your edition of April 19 is so unjust as to suggest political animus. So that there will be no misunderstanding I must ask you to allow me to restate the part I played in this matter. When the Rehabilitation Board announced midway through 1942 that Thames was one of the 23 centres in which local rehabilitation committees would be formed I at once stated to the board chairman that if only one committee was to be allowed an extensive area like Thames it would be wholly inadequate and that the great majority of the bodies and organisations concerned would have no direct representation whatever. Last July the board circularised all the organisations to which representation was to be given asking them to appoint their representatives. The circular explained the set-up df the committee and its functions. By the following November only 14 of the 2$ committees had been formed, and Thames was not among them. The board then wrote asking me to take action to bring a .Thames committee into existence.

My plan was to form a central committee first, to work then for the appointment of similar committees in other centres in my constituency—l am not concerned with Hauraki and Waikato, there being other M’s.P. to look after them—and to unite all these committees through! periodical conferences. I chose Thames for the central committee because it was the place from which the committee derived its name, and because, of all the towns in this constituency, it has the largest population. And before the committee was formed the Rehabilitation Board informed me by letter that the successor to Mr Thomas, rehabilitation officer at the Paeroa Manpower Office who was to be the first secretary to the committee but who was about to be transferred would reside in Thames.

At the meetings I convened to have the committee formed I urged the desirability of farmer representation and to ensure this, two proposals were made (1) that the Thames County Council should be represented on the committee and (2) that the committee be representative of Thames and the vicinity, SO 1 that a farmers’ Union man could be taken on (as a matter of fact the name of Mr Selwyn Hall, of .Matatoki, was mentioned). I appealed to the board to agree with this, but the board insisted that only one local authority should be representative of the borough interests only because at the time it had under consideration the appointment of farmer - committees to advise on all questions relative to the land settlement of soldiers.

From the board’s set-up it was clear that of the farmer-business interests only one' of the two could be represented—not both. There being no branch of the Employers’ Federation in Thames and none of the Farmers Union, the next best thing for me to do was to invite the local Chamber of Commerce to select a representative. This was how Mr Danby came to be appointed. He represents that chamber, not the farmers, hence the statement in your report that he was appointed to represent the farmers although he had no knowledge of farming questions is beside the point. Mr Danby, by the way, is a well-known businessman in Thames and a very active member of the Thames R.S.A., and if the reference to him at the meeting were as you reported them, they were ungenerous, to say the least. Having formed the Thames committee I next proceeded, with its strong support, to press upon the board a proposal 1 that similar committees be appointed at Paeroa, Waihi, Te Aroha and Coromandel. The board would only go as far as agreeing that this proposal should be discussed as a remit at a conference of committee chairmen and secretaries it then had in mind to convene. Just before I began to write this letter I was informed that this conference will not now be held, the board having decided within the past few days to appoint additional committees in a large number of places, including Paeroa, Te Aroha, Waihi and Coromandel. Sir, I’have already wired you to this effect. So all’s well that ends well—or at least I hope so! Your readers will now see why no organisation outside Thames was invited to be represented at the first meetings I convened to form the committee. The reason was certainly not that I wanted to deny any organisation the representation it was entitled to, but that I wanted to create a committee orgenisa ion which would directly cover all. It ; is not w.<noa.

humour that, after I did more work than any bther single individual in the electorate to create the organisation' throughout its whole length and breadth that will soon be in being, it should be inferred by anybody, especially bodies outside my electorate, that I have fallen down on the job. The world must be getting tough! . Your report states: “An instance was quoted of a farm which had been on the hands of the State Advances Corporation for many years and had now been sold to a returned soldier with the approval of the Thames Com- . mittee. Local men who knew the farm had no doubts that the man would have a very difficult time and would probably fail to make a success of th farm.” I have the minutes of the only two meetings the Thames committee has held before me andthere is no reference whatever to any approval being given by it to the ‘sale of any land to any soldier. The only soldier’ mentioned in the minutes who has been advanced a loan by the corporation is a man who has bought a farm at Netherton. But the Thames ’ committee had nothing to do with this, the loan having been arranged before the committee came into existence. The man I have in mind was a member of the Te Aroha branch of the R.S.A. The strongest appeals were made on his behalf by this branch when the corporation had virtually made up its mind not to lend him the money. The corporation only changed its mind on a report on the farm presented to it by a committee of farmers appointed by the Te Aroha R.S.A. I have a letter from this branch in which it is stated that the • man in question is happy in his present situation. The reference to this man in the Thames minutes was not to the purchase- of the farm 'but to his dis-. charge from the Army.—l am, etc., JAMES THORN

Note. —I thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the above letter before it was published.

I wish immediately to correct any suggestion that may be implied as to the suitability of Mr Danby as a mem- . ber of the rehabilitation committee-; - Firstly let me reiterate my statement > made at the R.S.A. meeting: “That Mr Danby who is a returned soldier is a personal friend of mine and one for whom I have the greatest respect and; regard. I stated that he represented! the business and farming interests on what we understood to be the Thames. District Rehabilitation Committee and questioned his ability to satisfactorily deal with any questions ‘ relative to farming interests in the Te Aroha, Waihi and Paeroa districts. Another statement're farm taken over from State Advances Corporation: “A member of the R.S.A. mentioned a farm purchased from the , State Advances Corporation and neither he nor I made any mention of it being passed by the Thames Committee. —I am, etc.,

v E. EDWARDS, •President, Paeroa-Hauraki R.S.A.