DIVISION IN MIDDLE EAST

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 307, 22 September 1943, Page 8

DIVISION IN MIDDLE EAST

Democratic Labour Would

Withdraw It

CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT

Dominion Special Service. DANNEVIRKE, September 21. “Today we arc on the verge of an industrial collapse unless something is done soon,” said Air. E. Ellis, Democratic Labour candidate for Pahiatna. speaking in the Daunevirke Concert Hali tonight, when he made a vigorous attack ou the Government's manpower policy. Goods were short and shelves empty, . he said, while the Government was piling up manpower in camps here and overseas, llis party maintained that more than one division could not be maintained in the field without damaging the country’s home life. As things were the commitments were the equivalent of three divisions. The men who so violently opposed war in 1914-18 had committed the country to this, and Air. Holland was equally culpable, for in the period in which these commitments were being made he raised no objection. He did not intend to he a merchant of personalities, said Air. Ellis, but in his criticism of the Government’s policy some individuals might cross the path of liis discourse —that was unfortunate. “I have yet to see the man who refused to go to war make a courageous leader in war,” he remarked. Citing the use of overseas tributes to New Zealand in Labour advertising, Mr. Ellis r aid that those who had never lifted a rifle to make New Zealand safe and. secure were now flaunting their patriotism before the people on the election eve. ■ The Democratic Labour Party did not_be-‘ lieve in selling New Zealand overnight' by Order-in-Council, and would withdraw the division from the Aliddle East, and after the personnel had had a good rest consider using them as reinforcements in the Pacific area. “Many People Might Say . . Labour circles in New Zealand were seeing in the Australian election results approval of their owu policy. They could not be wider of the mark. Air. Curtin received a mandate from his people because he acted fearlessly, and when Australia was threatened withdrew jhis men from the Middle East to defend fiieir own country. New Zealand’s Labour Government, on the other hand, believed in orthodoxy—sending the country’s fighters to Europe and over-com-mitting the Dominion’s manpower. The real similarity was between the policy ot Air. Curtin and that of the Democratic Labour Party. Alany people might say it would be disloyal to withdraw the division from tlie Middle East, but in his opinion it was more disloyal for a few men who refused to fight in the last war to turn round now and hopelessly commit the country’s manhood, and iu the process threaten the family life of the country. The end of the war was not in sight, but on present commitments it would, not be long before the 18-year-olds were back in camp, and at the other end or the scale the men with families drawn in. Air. Ellis quoted Air. Savage’s statement during the 1935 election that “the real issue was whether private banking corporations should continue to control currency or credit, or whether the State should take over.” But, said Air. Ellis, the Frasers and the Nashs had forgotten this, and Mr. Savage, and who they were in 1935—in short, they had sold out. The country was being made safe for bank Stock-holders by men now on the lower rung of the social ladder who, at the same time, let prices soar to saturation point and then stabilized wages. There was'a good attendance, which accorded Air. Ellis a hearty vote of thanks.