CORRESPONDENCE OPUNAKE POWER BOARO. THE DUTY ON ANIMAL FOOD. ALLOTTING RELIEF WORK.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 May 1931, Page 12

CORRESPONDENCE

OPUNAKE POWER BOARO.

THE DUTY ON ANIMAL FOOD.

ALLOTTING RELIEF WORK.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In your issue of Friday last Mr.

W. C. Green makes a half-hearted attempt to reply to my letter of the previous Tuesday. To dover up his confusion Mr. Green attempts to turn the tables on mo by' asserting that I have made statements that are contrary to fact and also that lie did not make the statements he was reported as having made at the April meeting of the board. I have looked up your report of that meeting as published in your issue of April 18 and here are Mr. Green’s words: “Ho considered the more equitable way would be to reduce charges all round and if necessary strike a rate to make up the deficiency.” This statement was of sufficient interest to .the people Mr. Green represents, or misrepresents, on the board that he should have at once corrected it if it was absolutely incorrect as he now asserts. In itself the suggestion involved is so utterly ridiculous as a proposal for affording “relief” to consumers that it invited the ridicule I poured on it in your issue of April 23. Ridicule is surely a legitimate weapon of public controversy and is to be distinguished from pure personalities, and my passing reference to Mr. Green as “the eminent Rahotu financier” was intended as part of the process of ridiculing Mr. Green’s proposal rather than as a “personal attack.” If Mr. Green, however, feels that it was unduly personal I readily, apologise, not only to Mr. Green but also to Rahotu for the use of the expression. I accept Mr. Green’s implied assurance that he is no financier and his repudiation of the title corroborates the evidence afforded by his statements ■at power board meetings as to his complete lack of financial knowledge. But if Mr. Green really has no objection to my criticism of the board’s management, but only to any personal attack, his speech at the May meeting of the board was a peculiar means of showing just what he objected to. The report makes no mention of Mr. Green’s accusing me of “personal attack,” but suggests rather a counter-offensive to my attack on his financial proposals, in itself so full of personalities as to suggest that Mr, Green not only does not object to controversy on the personal level but indeed appreciates no other. For instance, my questions were described as “childish”; the suggestion was made that I would dodge paying a rate; if one were struck; I was charged with having “never done anything for the public”; and my personal views on

other matters were dragged in to support a feeble argument that “striking a rate should appeal to me as it was a socialistic way of securing the money.” The author of such a tirade should not complain of personal attacks. Mr. Green apparently misunderstood my reference in a previous letter to his having joined with the rest of the board in administering a severe caning to an erring colleague who ventured to uphold the board’s end of the stick. My reference, let ine explain, was not to the chairman, who has never been guilty of publicly defending the board, but to Mr. J. S. Tosland, and my correction will doubtless recall to Mr. Green’s mind

the incident itself, and particularly his own prominent part in it. In my last letter I asked Mr. Green for some authority for his suggestion that the ■board might levy a rate to pay off its overdraft. I stated definitely that I knew it could levy a rate to meet a deficiency on the year’s working, but doubted if it could do so to pay off Old debts. Mr. Green’s reply to this is: “Can the power board strike a rate to meet a deficiency? he asks me. My answer is: Yes, the board can strike a rate to meet its obligations.” Obviously this is no answer to my query. I asked for authority on a specific point and Mr. Green has failed to produce it. Presumably he cannot. Mr. Green’s final thrust is as follows: “If Mr. Sheat could offer some sound constructive criticism instead of so much destructive criticism, I am sure ratepayers, and also members of the power board, would welcome it.” How can lor anyone else be expected to offer ‘some sound constructive criticism.” when the board is run so much on the lines of a secret society? At the last meeting Mr. Green himself was. responsible for placing every possible obstacle in the way of my obtaining inforjpation that the chairman had definitely and publicly promised would be gladly given. ■ In the face of this fact his call for me to produce “constructive criticism” is a piece of humbug and effrontery quite unworthy of a representative public man. Mr, Green’s two attempts to retrieve his position prove him to be quite as hopeless as his statements at the April meeting suggested. When such muddled thinking characterises the utterances of our local body , lights is it any wonder that the affairs of the Opunake Power Board are in the unsatisfactory position they now are in?—l am, etc., W. A. SHEAT. Piliama, May 25, 1931.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln your issue of the 25th inst.

the Rt. Hon, Mr. Coates, Leader of the Reform Party, in speaking at Hauraki was reported as having accused me of coquetting with the Country Party, and especially referred to his motion in the House of Representatives to have animal food admitted free. In the first place I might mention that Air. Coates appears to be somewhat sore that the Country Party have dared to put up a candidate at Hauraki. I venture to say that in place of iny having coquetted with the Country Party, the Reform Party has been assiduous in this respect, but so far has received nothing but rebuff from this party, which is a fairly strong farmers’ organisation in the Auckland province, and which is prepared. to challenge Reform in many constituencies in the forthcoming general elec-

tion. Regarding Air. Coates’ amendment, the Leader of the Reform Party must under-rate the intelligence of the electors when he tries to get away with such stuff as this. However, he was fairly safe in Hauraki where there was probably no one able to contradict him at the moment. Mr. Coates knows perfectly well that the amendment moved by him in regard to free importation of animal food only included “horse and cattle spices and condiments, proprietary or otherwise; mixed bird seeds.” See Item No. 2 of Customs tariff. The total amount received in one year in duty from the above items amounted to between £l3OO and £l4OO, according, to Mr. Coates’ own statement in the House. I am not quite clear as to how much of the above was paid on bird seed, but probably the greater portion. Electors will therefore see that Mr. Coates was simply humbugging the Hauraki electors. and incidentally, because of his position as leader of a party, has obtained a considerable amount of publicity on the matter, which does him no

credit. When Mr. Coates was asked on the floor of the House if he would include in his amendment the free importation of maize and wheat for poultry and other farmers, he deliberately and distinctly declL-ed to accept the suggestion. Had these two latter items been included in his motion he would then have been entitled to full credit for having made

a move to reduce farmers’ costs. On the other hand, Mr. Coates distinctly objected to doing any such thing, and for him to now take credit for endeavouring to have animal stock food admitted free is nothing more or less than sheer humbug.

I would again repeat that the Reform Party is responsible for the present crushing import duty on wheat and flour,, which adds so much to the cost of living, the f.o.b. price of flour in Australia being less than £5 per ton and the duty on a shipment just landed being £ll per ton.—l am, etc., C. A. WILKINSON. Eltham, May 26, 1931.

< (To the Editor.) Sir,—l am just another person who is finding it hard to live these days. I secured some work a month ago and now I have finished it; but I know of a farmer who would give me work, if he could, under the No. 4 scheme, which states the Government pays 15s for the single man and 25s for the married one and the farmer makes up the rest. But as far as I can make out one has to put in an application to the Labour Department and the farmer get s a man whom the Labour Department picks. Now what I am getting ah is this, cannot the farmer pick his ojvn men? Of course I am meaning myself 'in this instance. Well, I you will be able to give me a suitable answer as I am keen to know, and it also means work for me if this is possible—l am, etc., INTERESTED.

It seems apparent the correspondent is conversant with No. 4 scheme and, if so, must be aware that all information is available at the New Plymouth Labour Department office, which is the local unemployment bureau. The Unemployment Board has laid it down that the selection of the farm and the employee must be at the discretion of the local committee, and this has been done

for very good reasons—numbers of instances (have come to the notice of the Unemployment Board, where farmers have discharged employees and endeavoured to re-engage them under the employment scheme, thus throwing the ■responsibility of paying wages on the Government. Local committees have been able to arrange for a considerable number of men to be placed under scheme 4A and “Interested” should have no difficulty providing his case is genuine and he makes application through the recognised channels.—(Ed. Daily News).