EQUAL SACRIFICE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 63, 15 March 1944, Page 2

EQUAL SACRIFICE

MANPOWER PROBLEMS

VIEWS IN PARLIAMENT

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

The Government's handling of the manpower question was the object of criticism in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr. Roy (Nat., Clutha), who said that far too much use had been made of the term "essential occupation," and that in the final analysis no one was indispensable. Replying to the member for Raglan (Mr. Coulter), who had asked what the Opposition was going to do with, the 5000 single men still engaged in farming, Mr. Roy said that the Opposition's answer was that no differential treatment was asked for any section of the community—all sections should pull their weight. The responsibility belonged'to the Government, and in time of war no fit man should be exempt. There were some cases, of course, where fit men had to be left in their jobs as long as possible, but the position had been that one family could be bled white because it had no grounds for appeal, while other families had used the appeal boards to get exemptions. No family should be allowed to be completely eliminated. In the primary and other industries there were still large numbers of fit single men whose places should be taken by second grade men and men who were at the front, declared Mr. Roy. Men could not be kept at the front indefinitely. In production the Government had planned for a short war, and for this there was no justification. Because of the Government's mishandling of the manpower problem production was going down. Mr. Meachen (Govt., Marlborough) contended that some members on the Opposition side had few scruples about appealing for A grade men. Referring to the member lor the Bay of Plenty, Mr. W. Sullivan, Mr. Meachen alleged that "20 per cent of his present staff has been appealed for by the firm of which he is a principal." Later he referred to a paper mill where, he alleged, men were appealed for in dozens. Mr. W. Sullivan explained that he had been grossly misrepresented, adding that 35 men who had been employed by his firm were now serving either in New Zealand or overseas. Appeals had been lodged for only two A grade men, both of them key personnel. Since the return of the furlough draft an offer had been made to exchange a returned man with one of the men held on appeal.