BIG BLUFFS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 25 November 1922, Page 11

BIG BLUFFS

('K. tin- toiiKy _ < 1* yi t . ( _„YoiU' correspondent, ‘ Indig-1 nant” challenges me to prove that MrM Atmore’s boast about having obtained ' so much money for public works in his < district during Ida term of office is bluff, 1 and says if it is not proved an apology G is due'to Mr Atmoro. In .Inc first |, place, when a responsible. Minister of the Crown from his official place ml, Parliament makes an important state-1, merit affecting the interests of the j . public of the Nelson electorate in the , allocation of money for public works in , their district and his future official visits to the district, surely the public of Nelson have a right to be informed ot that statement. Why did the Parlia- , mentavy correspondent of The Mad, in such a,' case, omit to tell the Nelson , public of that statement? Now for the facts of the case, and it is probable that . those facts may astonish many of your . readers . Mr A'tmorc was elected in Dccember, 1919. and Parliament met m June, 1920. The war was over, and 1920 was a vear of prosperity in New 1 Zealand; 1921 was the slump year; and : we are still in the throes of 1922. The 1 Government, vas very liberal in the dis- 1 tribution of money for public works in 1920; the purse strings were drawn 1 tighter in 1921 and 1922. 1920 was the j golden opportunity for the member for • Nelson and for all memhers of Parlia- . mont to get money for public works in j their districts. How did Mr Atmoro si district faro? Let Mr Atmoro himself speak ! On October 29th Mr Atmoro says in Hansard: ‘‘So far as my district is concerned he (the Minister of Public Works) has shown most unfair neglect of it.” At the Theatre Royal the other night Mr Atmore was boasting of how i much monev he got for public works in 1920. Bluff! He was singing a different tune in 1920. He goes on to complain, “We have the fruit industry in Nelson. . they should to-day be receiving an allocation of money. . . 1 The honourable gentleman may laugh, hut it is not a. joke for those settlors. . . Why should industries like the promising orchards of Nelson bo neglected? ... I should bo a craven and a coward if because it was a disagreeable task I did not speak out for the men and women who have entrusted their interests to my care. I say they have been treated ’ most _ unfairly.” Then he refers to the Minister of Public Works as one of the most popular members of the House, and goes on, “I would have been unworthy of the, i trust reposed in me if 1 did not rise amLprotcst against the insult put on the+poople of my district by saying in effect that they' are fit to pay money info the consolidated fund and to say they are not fit to receive a fair share of tin' revenue. . Why should industries like the promising orchards of Nelson he neglected?” Mr Atmore further said in his speech that this debate would resound through Now Zealand. It did not resound through Nelson. A few carefully selected extracts from Mr Atmore’s speech were sent over by your Parliamentary correspondent and that was all the public hoard of it,. I have been asked to prove my statement that the Nelson district got a very poor share of money for public works in 1920. I | have proved it from Mr Atmore’s own i month. That is for one year; one- ‘ third of Mr Atmorc’s term of office. Hut the money allocated in 1920 was I for spending in the following year 1921. So that Mr Atmore’s complaint j covers both 1920 and 1921, and we all know how Public Works expenditure was cut down in 1923. But there is worse to follow. There is the Minis! or of Public Works’ rcoly to Mr Aten re’s sneecli. A Wellington publicaItion, referring to it, said, “Few men have received a more terrible ‘dressing down’ administered in a gentlemanly way than the member for Nelson received ,on that occasion from the Hon. Mr Coates. It is curious that ■the Parlianieidhiry J corresponded ! of The Mail should hayc missed it.” Yet Mr Atmore said Iho other evening that the only disagreeable incident that occurred in his term of office was the littlp friction about the introduction of the Fill-tlio-Gap railway deputation. Bluff! If this was not a disagreeable incident Mr Atmoro cannot object to its being referred to. The Minister for Public Works said, “I must take a special reference to the i statements of the honourable memiher for Nelson. I do not take his references personally, because I bo{liovo he has got to fight for his dis- | trict. But 1 would point out to him that the best way of having his requirements considered is to sea the Minister of Public Works before the | estimates arc published, and not to save everything up until afterwards, when he finds that lie has ‘missed the ’bus’ from his point of view?” An Hon, Member: “Did lie not do that?’ ’ The Hon. Mr Coates; “Nut once. I am Lolling this straight out to his face. When he talks of public works so far as 1 am conicern'ed 1 am on sound and solid ground. Ho accused the Minister of Public Works—this paragon irom Nelson—accused the Minister of Public W orks of dishonesty and treacherously allocating money to (he Auckland district. . . I wilDshow the honourable gentleman presently whore ho is If a. mistake has been made m the honourable gentleman’s ease then all I can say is that 1 have an office where I can bo interviewed. . . 1 would not intentionally do a wrong to any member of this House irrespective of whether ho is opposed to mo politically or otherwise. . . I maintain that 1 can justify every word in that Statement (the Public Works Statement), and not only in tin's House, but, in spite of what Hie member for Nelson said •I can justify it in his own district, and I believe, I should be listened to it I were speaking there, although I am afraid after his attack to-night and that of several other members. I will not have what I would _ like to have had--the pleasure of visiting them and their district. H they relent and ask me .1 shall be pleased to go if pus sible and visit them and their districts and take the opportunity of looking into tlie many requirements which, are now, no doubt urgently wanted i i those districts.” But does Mr Atmero ever apologise? And has the

Minister of Public Works visited Nelson since? It is noteworthy that .Mr Atmore did not deny the Minister s charge or even say he had been misrepresented. Now comes the big bluff that has been so far successfully played on the eicbtofs of Nelson. Iho first tiling was to keep the? Minister of Public Works’ speech,from the knowledge Of the public. A few weeks after tin's “terrible dressing down’ ’in Parliament, the lit.si of a number of letters t > the Press appeared praifsing up Mr Atmore and boasting of what he had dcuo for Nelson. Hero are a few csA tracts from the first one signed “Elector”; “lire energy which Mr Atmore has put into his work since the day of his election. . has seldom been exceeded. . ■ perhaps not even by -Mr Oruhalii himself.” What bluff! This, too, just after Mr Attiiorf had been publicly told ho had ‘missed the ’bus” for public works in the Nelson district by his own neglect of his duties. Then it goes on, “We have a member wo are proud of, for we have watched lub doings on the floor of the House with no small satisfaction because he has put that vim into his work which has not characterised many past representatives of this citv and* district.” How easily his supporters think the public of Nelson can be bluffed. Mr Atmore has waked up since the golden opportunity was lost ami tried to do a little for Ids £SOO a year —it meant political extinction for him, if he did not, and these facts ever came out. But we have the same bluff going on at all Mr Atmore’s meetings—this boasting of what he has done — this singing “I or he’s a jolly good fellow??-—this attempt to bluff off criticism by appealing for sympathy against letters in the press—this bluffing of questions by insisting— that questioners must come up on the platform —this bluffiing of the clectors by all sorts of shallow means. It is no compliment to the intelligence of the electors of Nelson to look upon them as so many fools to be bluffed and gulled. I am, etc., ANTI-BLUFF

(There is a suggestion, more, or less, (mostly less) veiled tiiat the Parliamentary correspondent of The Alai! lias been favouring Air Atmore. This is absolutely and entirely false. We have treated Mr Atmore with absolute fairness throughout, but there has been no favouritism (nor the reverse), nor will there be. of any member that happens to represent the district. In the case the correspondent above mentions, there is certainly an omission, but he would have been better advised in pointing' it out at the time rather than reserving it ami other c.ircmnstances which apparently lie was carefully noting, for over two years and firing it off as electioneering propaganda. Only those who know something of the work, realise what a difficult task it is to present all the essential matters in the proceedings of Parliament. The 'Parliamentary correspondents are picked men and The Mail’s representative is among the very best, and we have had ample evidence that it lias been ■ In's honest endeavour to carry out our implicit instructions for absolute fairness and impartiality—not that he required any such instructions. The omission in question is perfectly obvious and unjustifiable. But taking the Parliamentary proceedings of the last three years as a whole we can claim to have given the people of this district a fair and impartial review, focussed from the national point of view, hut with duo regard to local matters after the national requirement has been met. This is what the great majority of Ihe people, whatever their politics, require. It sometimes happens that an ordinary speech of a local member may appear to overshadow a Ministerial statement, but • e proceedings from day to day must ue taken into account, and closer examination will show that nothing of ilie sort has been the case.)