MANPOWER PROBLEM

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23805, 26 November 1942, Page 4

MANPOWER PROBLEM

ARMED FORCES AND INDUSTRY REVIEW OF SITUATION URGED A conference called in Christchurch yesterday by the Progress League and attended by delegates from 40 different organisations and local bodies in Canterbury,’called upon the Government to review the manpower situation. Mr S. P. Taylor, chairman of the Ashburton County Cyuncil, presided. The conference decided that the absence of a carefully considered plan for the efficient utilisation of the Dominion’s manpower, embracing the relative requirements of the armed forces and industry and preserving an appropriate balance between various groups, was causing undesirable competition for a rapidly diminishing reserve of manpower which, if allowed to continue, would inevitably lead to the disorganisation of the national effort. The first step towards a planned effort to secure the most effective use of manpower, the conference held, .was a thorough classification of all available personnel arranged in priority or essentiality of the uses to which it could be put. This should be brought about by effective co-operation with and between leaders of groups who “are carrying the national interests.” and greater acceptance by the /Government of their considered opinions and advice. “You have all seen the weary procession of people going to Wellington for consultation and their time wasted,” declared Mr W. Machin, who moved this latter clause. After experts in industry had given advice at the request of the Government, he added, a diametrically opposed decision to that advice had often been announced. Home Defence The conference declared that the present method of requiring continuous service for home defence forces was subject to serious defects as it was wasteful of manpower, inefficient, costly, tedious, and frustrating to the men concerned. Concentration on more intensive methods of training for limited numbers of men for short periods was urged on the ground of greater efficiency. This, it was contended would release a large proportion of manpower for civilian work. The men so released would remain trained and be available for mobilisation in the event of a real emergency. Present continuous service for youths of 18 entering the forces, it was held, was “specially demoralising,” , Delegates argued that Home Guard parades, particularly in country districts where men were working long hours on farms, should be reduced and confined to more realistic training. The-conference decided, finally, that the supply of foodstuffs to our allies and the oppressed countries, as well as to the Dominion’s normal customers after the war, necessitated the expansion of farm production. “But increasing difficulties of manpower threaten to impair present production and effectively prevent the expansion that will be required to .meet post-war needs," read a resolution that will be forwarded to the Government. An obvious source for increased labour supply, it was stated, was the utilisation of prisoners of war, not only for direct productive work on farms, but also for the eradication of noxious weeds, for gorse growing, swamp drainage, and forestry. Prisoners for Farms Therefore, the Government was urged, in view of the present labour shortage, to follow the practice adopted in other parts of the Empire, and to make possible the use of prisoners of war for maintaining farm production and improving farm lands. This last resolution had the support of -Mr D. W, Westenra, who said there was no reason why Italian prisoners should not be brought to New Zealand for such purposes, “They are lawabiding, excellent workers, and I don’t think they would require much military control,” he added amidst laughter, “Let us use them for some of the heavier work." , The resolutions were moved by Mr D. S. Mackenzie, of the Waipara County Council, who declared that the Dominion’s manpower should be under civilian control. Many farmers, he said, had had an unhappy experience of trying to plan ahead. But planning was impossible when there was an uncertain supply of labour. “The men of this country should have been organised and directed as to what should be done for the whole period of the war,” he declared. “Three years ago we drew the necessity for doing this to the attention of the Government.” “The Prime Minister had a wonder-' ful opportunity for uniting this country," said Mr Mackenzie, “out the machine has proved too much for him.” While he did not wish to criticise the Minister of Defence ori personal grpunds, the speaker said that his appointment in 1935 was for territorial reasons and at a time when the portfolio was not considered important. “Yet this same man is still in control of the destiny of this country,” he said. “We must protest against this machine.” It was efficiency that won wars, said Mr A. M. Hollander, of the Manufacturers’ Association. “We must produce pnly the things that are really essential. Yet no decision has yet been made as to what is essential. A correct balance has yet to be decided. Consequently, there has been a loss in manpower." Appeals Procedure This speaker also criticised the procedure of appeals for exemption and said that much time was wasted: it was the obvious duty of the Government to promulgate a policy concerning men to be appealed for. After three years of war, said the president of the Chamber of Commerce (Mr C. G. Wood); young unmarried men should have been sorted out. Young men from 18 to 21 years in camp, he said, had too much leisure time. Proper training, organisation, and education for them was essential until they were ready to take their places in the fighting forces. Cr. M. E. Lyons, of the Christchurch City Council, said; “The plain truth is this—we must admit that we have bitten off more than we can chew. It is time that a stocktaking was made of all our resources. We must do something if our production is not going to suffer. Now is the time to see where we are heading. Can we maintain such a big force overseas and the number of men now in camps in this country?” Some of the young men in the forces were doing good work, remarked Professor A. H. Tocker, but others were “absolutely fed up.” What was required. in his opinion, was not so many Home Guard and E.P.S. parades, but a real economy of manpower to avoid waste of time and effort. “What is important,” he added, “is to get the job' done, and that is where the Americans have taught us a lesson if we can only profit by it.” Mr R. T. McMillan, chairman of the North Canterbury Primary Production Council, remarked that a census of manpower should have been taken at the beginning of the war. The manpower now available was insufficient, in his opinion, if production requirements as set out by the Government were to be maintained. No Co-operation It was claimed by Mr H. C. B. Withell, chairman of the Mid-Canterbury Farmers’ Union, that there was a lack of co-ordination’between the War Cabinet and the Army in regard to the release of men for essential work. A drift from the country to the cities, said Mr R. C. Bishop, had added to the difficulties of the farmers. “With changing conditions,” he said, discussing manpower for production, “there should be a change of policy. Many men now in camp could assist in the production of foodstuffs.” He also declared that men while working their farms should have less Home Guard training. “The farmers are losing confidence in the powers that be,’’ he concluded. At the conclusion of the meeting the chairman said: “We have a clear mandate from this important conference to do all in our power to have the situation rectified. Surely, this con-