FARMERS & REHABILITATION

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3248, 5 April 1943, Page 5

FARMERS & REHABILITATION

(To The Editor)

Sir—Your edition of March 26 last reported a resolution carried at a meeting of the Northern Thames Sub-provincial executive of the New Zealand, Farmers’ Union protesting against the “town interest” personnel of the Thames Rehabilitation Committee and, generally speaking, urging representation \of the farming interests.

My recent statement on the steps taken to form this Rehabilitation Committee, and on the reasons for the selection of its. personnel, should make it clear that what has been .done is only an initial step in the creation of an adequate rehabilitation organisation in the Thames area.

I entirely agree that the farmers are entitled to representation on rehabilitation committees, and so do the members of the committee in Thames.

To the second meeting’ of representatives of the interests concerned'which. I convened in Thames- when I was working at the task of forming the committee ■! invited the Thames County Council to send a representative, because I wanted the committee to provide for the farming interests, although, I was not certain from the Rehabilitation Board’s circular that more than one local authority could be given representation.

At this meeting I suggested that a resolution should be carried urging upon the Rehabilitation Board that the Thames 'County Council as well as the Thames Borough Advisory Committee should be represented. In the report of this meeting’ which I submitted to the board dated December 23 last, the following paragraph was included: “The representation of the county council gave the meeting some concern, and I was asked by resolution to suggest to the board that in addition to the borough council this representation should be conceded. The county council offices are in the borough, and for this reason all soldiers returning to the county area are certain to contact with their cbunty officers. Thus the county has a' real claim on representation, and my strong personal opinion is that this should be granted.” On the ground, however ,that its set-up "did not provide for the representation of two local authorities on any one rehabilitation committee, the board would not accede to this request.

The Thames committee' was not formally constituted until early February, but at its first meeting on February 25, it passed the following motion.: “That as Thames is surrounded by a large farming district and as this district will be looked to absorb, a large number of returned men, it is considered, that the county council should be represented, and that further representations be made to the Rehabilitation Board, Wellington, in this connection.” I have personally written the board supporting this resolution.

In the board’s reply to me it is stated that it has made a recommendation to Cabinet that farmer subcommittees should be set up to advise 1 all the rehabilitation committees on every question concerning the settlement of returned servicemen on the land. When this is approved it should go a lorig way to meet the claims of farming organisations who wish to assist in this very important activity.

I rather think that we will not have to wait long for further action with reference to rehabilitation committees in local districts. I may add, though, that my work so far has related to fitly own constituency, and I am taking no responsibility for any lack of activity or result in any other.—l am, etc.,

JAMES THORN House of Representatives. 1/4/43.