CORRESPONDENCE

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXXI, Issue 8831, 9 October 1942, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

COUPONS FOR DISCHARGED MEN (To the Editor.) Sir, —Some time ago you published a letter signed by Mr M. W. J. Ensor about difficulty experienced in obtaining clothing coupons on discharge from camp, bub unfortunately, because of my travels throughout the electorate, I did not see it for some time. However, as soon as possible I asked the Minister of Defence to go into the points raised and let me have an explanation. The Minister’s reply has just reached- me, and reads: “Dear Mr Thorn:—ln reply to your letter of September 23, 1942, covering cutting from the ‘Waihi Telegraph’ of September 7, I have to advise that all ration coupons, with the exception of clothing coupons, were available to Army personnel early in June. .Personnel could obtain a complete issue on application. The clothing coupons were, issued to all districts at the end of June, and those also were available on application. Army personnel, on being discharged, must make application to the nearest rationing officer, when they will be given civilian rationing books, plus the extra number of clothing coupons to which their length of service entitles them.— Yours faithfully, W. E. Parry, for the Minister of Defence.”—l am, etc., JAMES THORN, M.P. for Thames.

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT (To The Editor) Sir, —I must thank you for reprinting from the Te Aroha News the very generous report that journal gave of my recent consultation with the executive of the R.S.A. at Te Aroha. This meeting, although political opponents of the Party to which I belong were present, was one of the most friendly in my experience, and after the goodwill and sweet reasonableness that were shown there, it was-rather with a shock that I read under the headline of “R.S.A. Indignant” in your edition of September 28 the objurgations poured upon me by the chairman of the R.S.A. at Te Awamutu. I assure you there was no indignation by the R.S.A. members who heard me make the statement that has so excited the Te Awamutu gentleman. What happened was that at a certain stage in the discussion of land settlement as part of a rehabilitation programme I briefly explained the provisions of the amendment to the Small Farms Act which had been made in the interests of returned soldiers. One of the members present (Mr Wagstaff), asked me whether it provided for the freehold tenure. The generally speaking excellent report of the discussion did me rather an injustice here because I replied quite definitely that it did not, and it was then that I made the statement that has won for me so much hostile publicity in papers throughout the Waikato and in my own electorate.

Unhappily what I said resulted from a statement made to me just before I rose by a member who assured me that the R.S.A. now accepted the provisions of this Act, and thinking that he had been informed of changes in the R.S.A. attitude, I said in a sentence that I understood that the Act had the blessing of the organisation. Apparently I _ was wrong. Well, I withdraw. I certainly do not wish to misrepresent the R.S.A. policy. What it stands for now is what it stood for a year or so ago—the freehold. I think, however, that this is regrettable, because I am satisfied that if it persists with this policy the R.S.A. will soon be out of step with progressive opinion. For instance, last Monday morning I heard the BBC announcer state that the Archbishop of Canterbury had made a declaration in favour of the nationalisation of the land for the reason that community interests were paramount to those of private individuals. I like the Archbishop! In your report of the Te Awamutu R.S.A. meeting it is stated that “members expressed their indignation that members of Parliament were constantly stating publicly that the R.S.A. was satisfied with the rehabilitation policy of the Government.” Well, members of Parliament may quite easily get this impression from pronouncements made publicly by the R.S.A. itself. Let me'give a case or two.

In the Wellington Dominion of February 5 last there is a statement issued by the Dominion Executive Committee of the Returned Services Association on the representation in the Rehabilitation _ Council. After commenting on the fact that no fewer than 12 of its members had served in the Armed Forces the statement goes on to say: “That the representation on the council covers all sections of industry and labour and that many of the appointees are already experienced in handling the problems of servicemen, is fully appreciated by the N.Z.R.S.A., and it is - considered that the council and the board (which is to be comprised of members of the council) is well equipped to bring forward practical and worth-while schemes for the rehabilitation of those serving in the present war. The statement concluded: “Satisfaction was expessed that two of the appointees were nominees of the N.Z.R.S.A. and one of the Soldiers’ Civil Re-establish-ment League.”

There would not appear to be much indignation with the Government’s actions here!

On June 19 last the Wellington Dominion published some references, to the Dominion Conference of the R.S.A. These included the following: “In the annual report the execu-

tive expressed the opinion that the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, 1941, were satisfactory and consti- - ' tuted the framework on which the Rehabilitation Board and the asso- v ciation might construct, formulate and initiate plans for the absorption into civil life of men returning or already returned from overseas, those serving in the permanent forces, on instructional staffs and those mobilised for continuous service in New Zealand, as well as their dependants. The success of the rehabilitation of ex-service men and women and the post-war reconstruction of this Dominion is largely dependent on the administration of this Act, and in these important activities the R.S.A., its -branches and members will find ample scope for active co-operation.”

The Dominion report ended thus: “Colonel C. H. Weston, Wellington, said he thought the association could congratulate itself on having ’ its Dominion Executive represented on the Rehabilitation Board because the question had gone a long way already and its representatives were laying foundations on which the association could build.” All of which I suggest does convey the impression that the R.S.A. i s not dissatisfied with the Government’s efforts in this connection, and that in the Rehabilitation Act passed ‘by the present Government the R.S.A. ' has very considerable power to work out and administer policies by which the interests of returned men and women can be served. I may conclude r that what the R.S.A. Executive report to its own conference affirmed, as above, I said myself to the meeting in Te Aroha.—l am, etc., JAMES THORN. House of Representatives, 6/10/42.