CORRESPONDENCE FARMERS & REHABILITATION

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3251, 12 April 1943, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE

FARMERS & REHABILITATION

(To-The Editor)

Sir, —May I point out several weaknesses in Mr Thorn’s letter in your issue of April 5. The resolution of the Northern Thames Sub-Provihciall Executive of the Farmers’ Union went further than to ask for farmer representation oh the Rehabilitation Committee; it asked for majority representation, Mr Thorn might possibly concede equal representation, as he knows full well that, if it were not for the produce of the district Thames town would not exist.

Seeing that it is ultra vires for the Rehabilitation Board to appoint another local authorities’ representative on the committee, I would ask Mr Thorn if it has never occurred to him that the Farmers’ Union should be asked to nominate a number of farmer representatives equhl to the number of town representatives.

The Rehabilitation Board is stated to have plans for the formation of local committees of farmers “to advise” the Rehabilitation Committees on the' settlement of returned servicemen on the land. This means that the proposed farmers’ committees are to advise, but the town/ committees arf to make the decisions. The farmers may well ask ,with reason and justice why the boot should not be on the other foot, they to make the decisions while the town committees do. the advising. Where so much expenditure of public funds is in question the farmers would like to be sure that their advice' would be taken.—l am, etc., ROBERT L. WILSON, Puriri. 8/3/43.