VUWSA trusts you, as a strong supporter of the Task Force, will be prepared to answer these questions publicly.

I am writing to express disappointment that you have not yet Buen fit to reply to my letter of 16 May on the Auckland Task Force. You queried my authority to write this, which I found insulting, but afters reply to that query on 28 May from the President of this Association you have had over 8 month to reply and have not done so.

While apprecisting that M.P.'s have very busy lives, we had hoped from your strong public support for the Task Force you knew something about the subject and would be prepared to share this with us. From your failure to answer we can conclude either that you know very little about Task Force and are merely using ti as a convenient political football, or that the Acord report on the Task Force which we referred you to is in fact an accurate analysis of the situation and your failure to reply indicates a realisation of your mistake in this matter.

Would you care to suggest which of these conclusions is more correct?

In reply to your telegram referring to Anthony Ward's letter I will outline the position. Our Association, as you will be aware, takes an active interest in many aspects of New Zealand society. The National Affairs Committee is at present investigating several fields of interest to us. One of these is the Task Force in Auckland.

Having seen the report presented by Acord, we were interested in gaining the other side of the story, one we felt you as a supporter of Task Force might be able to give. Anthony Hard's letter was on behalf of the Association - we trust you will be prepared to answer it.

I am writing to acknowledge your letter of 1st July 1975 which draws attention to an unanswered letter of 28th may.

To begin with, it is not my policy to answer telegrams on important matters which have political connotations without first checking the source and bona fides of the signatory. It would appear that you cannot have read the newspapers which reported my intended absence in Australia on Parliamentary business from 18th May. I returned to New Zealand some two weeks ago and have given rightful precedence to the many inquiries I received from my electorate during my absence. No doubt you would have received an answer in due course.

I would remind you that the second paragraph in your second letter contains three alternatives which you seem to consider must be my thinking on matters pertaining to the Task Force. I prefer to do my own thinking and prefer not to have words put in my mouth. I have made my stand on the Task Force well known and with ample publicity of the reasons why. It has been my experience since entering Parliament to feel a responsibility towards the community at large who indeed have to be protected and this can only be done by upholding law and order.

It has been interesting to note the amount of minor pressure groups who are expressing a political motivation this year, and it is equally amazing that there are so many people in the community (still a small proportion fortunately) whose aim seems to be to achieve a lessening or slackening of law and order. Many of the critics of law and order are the first to complain to the Police when lawlessness affects them and one wonders how much compassion they would show when they became the victims themselves. I choose to stand with the majority of the community which favours law and order and respect for the police.