LEAGUE OF LOCAL BODIES’ MEETING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 30 August 1945, Page 3

LEAGUE OF LOCAL BODIES’ MEETING

(To the Editor) Sir, —Considerations of courtesy, Mr Atmore says, compel him to reply to my letter of August 4th. Such an Expression makes me wonder what compelled him to write in the first instance; not “courtesy,” I am sure, judging by the tone right through; but what strikes me most is how such a courteous gentleman can ignore and not reply to the Power Board, from whom he received a letter expressing regret that he did not attend the annual meeting of the League of Local Bodies. This letter conveyed to him the unanimous opinion of the Power Board members. However, I am pleased that he did arrange for tl)£ Prime Minister to receive the deputation from the League, and we have his assurance to work together for the welfare of our district. According to the report of that meeting with the Ministers, it was well put and well received.

Sir, this has been the case many times for many years. The local bodies and district representatives do all they can, and unfortunately it lapses; they have lacked continuity of support from our representatives in Parliament, and for the lack of that support their efforts have been more or less in vain. The proof of this is our situation, and our neglected situation was the cause of the birth of the League of Local Bodies, through which it might be possible to remedy such neglect and have many of the amenities which other districts in New Zealand are enjoying.

Mr Atmore would like all readers to believe that he could not (owing to the important business before ‘Parliament) leave for one day to attend a meeting of relatively minor national importance. I agree that an M.P. should make it his business to attend Parliament if his attendance is not required on important matters in his own electorate, and we know that as Parliament is conducted now it is not very beneficial to us some of the time and I believe on the day of the League’s meeting the Address-in-Rep|y debate was still in progress, and none of those important matters mentioned by Mr Atmore was even in sight. Would Mr Atmore deny that he was absent from Parliament on three days of various dates between the opening of Parliament on June 27th and July 13th, the day of the local bodies’ conference? Mr Atmore is much concerned, as he has mentioned it again, that I did not give my reasons for moving a vote of thanks to Mr Aderman for his address at Richmond. Perhaps what has upset him is the fact that it was carried unanimously on the voices. I really believe it is this that has caused him to attack me, as there was quite a period, of time between the Power Board meeting and Mr Aderman’s. ]V[y reason for moving that motion, Mr Atmore, is this: the present Government’s policy is much in the direction of keeping the people ignorant, to treat us like children, and you yourself have not done anything to prevent this or keep the people informed of the various trends in affairs —in things the people should know and have a right to know. The only time we hear you, apart from in the House, is when election time is getting near. Mr Aderman, in his address, was quite educative in letting bis hearers . khow things which it is well for them to know according to the trends of the times.

Mr Atmore has attempted to inisconstrue some of my references. Perhaps he misunderstood me; I would rather accept it this way than think he did it deliberately. Mr Atmore says I hate an Independent. I did not say that. What I did say was, I would hate to be classed as a i ail-sitter or a “political acrobat,” not mentioning an Independent. If , hls interpretation of this means an Independent, I won’t argue with him over that, but I did not say I hated anybody; in fact, I don’t and hope I never will. I can argue or debate without ever causing any ill-feeling, personally, as far as I am concerned My admiration is not for Labour’s political policy, but for the “man” who is honest in his beliefs and is game to own it.

No, Mr Atmore, there was no rejoicing in my heart over the change of government in England. When peo£u n r f j .?, ice at the overthrow of Mr Churchill it makes one ask: have they any sense of appreciation for services rendered, as there is no one Who did as much as he to bring us victory? I was astounded, Mr Atmore, when I read the report of your speech in the House of Representatives on the World Charter where you stated that the achievement of the Labour Party would dc more to bring hope to the people of the Continent than any other happening m the last 20 years. Surely you don’t mean it! This implie- an even greater victory than winnin r the war. You did not even mention the name of Mr Churchill, but chose td condemn the Conservative policy of the Umted Kingdom by saying that Britain was on e of the most classridden countries of the world. The giant, Mr Atmore said, had been asleep, had awakened, and there was new hope for 2,000,000,000 people'. It was a tremendous event and an occasion for rejoicing. There we have Mr Atmore; yet he claims to be an Independent No wonder his VJ-Day addresses were of the type he gave. Sir, his attitude can honestiy be summed up in one word: “disgusting.”— I am, etc., Wakefield, 25th Aug A ' HIGGINS -