REPLY TO MR. DICKIE.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 April 1932, Page 8

REPLY TO MR. DICKIE.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—-Air. Dickie’s 'reply to my first letter is hardly what one would expect from a man in his responsible position. Mr. Dickie has had sufficient experience of political life to know that one of the first rules of the game is that a Parliamentarian should always endeavour to avoid statements reflecting on the personal integrity of his opponents, but if' such an attack ’is necessary in the public interests it should only be made after the facts have been carefully verified. Air. Dickie takes credit for refraining from mentioning the incident during the campaign as he “did not wish to drag personalities into the contest.” I admire the candour with which he admits the attack wms a personal one and am surprised that he stands for reducing the standard of Parliamentary debate to the level which he admits would be “over the odds” if descended to during the campaign. One would expect that members would, if anything, be more careful regarding personal attacks launched under the cover of Parliamentary privilege and of making similar attacks during the election contest.

Mr. Dickie admits that he knew of my breaches of the Act as long ago as November last. Evidently he has since that time had some idea of exposing me at some later date and in a place where I could not reply. Yet in the meantime he has made no attempt to ascertain the true facts, as it was apparently only after my challenge appeared that he even went so far as to consult the newspaper ' report of the case. Aly personal relations with Air. Dickie have always hitherto been sufficiently friendly to have led me to expect that before making a personal attack based, as he admits, on an inference from the magistrate’s'comment, he might have approached me .personally with a view to ascertaining the true position. I am glad to learn that in the business with which-Air, Dickie is connected no man is taken 1 on unless he produces - his union ticket. In my business the same practice is observed when men are employed, but I have not heard a case where a boy straight from school is able to produce his union ticket and also a clearance from the union to which he formerly belonged. If Mr. Dickie had investigated the matter a little further and nad perused the actual charge made against me he would have ascertained that I was charged with failing to notify the union secretary within 48 hours of my employment of a nonunionist and not that I was charged with employing a ntm-unionist. Instead of attempting to side track the issue in this manner, Air. Dickie would have been better advised to have made a straightforward admission that his allegation of underpaying my employees was incorrect and have undertaken unreservedly to withdraw the charge in the place where it was .made. It is obvious to any one perusing the Hansard report that Air. Dickie went out of his way to refer to me, as is shown by the fact that the Speaker interrupted him during his reference to me and definitely questioned whether the remarks were relevant to the Bill under discussion.

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I suppose that I must accept Mr. Dickie’s explanation as I recognise that his attack was . covered by Parliamentary privilege and it rests. entirely with him whether he does the fair thing or not.—l am, etc., ° W. G. SIMPSON.