Debate Concluded

Evening Post, Volume CXXXV, Issue 66, 19 March 1943, Page 4

Debate Concluded

"PROPOSALS UNSHAKEN"

A reply lasting over an hour and a half was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) at the end of the debate on manpower in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. The conclusion drawn by Mr. Fraser was that nobody had shaken the War Cabinet's proposals for the redistribution of the country's man-power resources between the Armed Forces and industries, nor had anyone pointed out where they were wrong1. He said he took it that the House accepted the proposals in the absence of motions to the contrary.

To this statement Mr. J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn) said that he would have moved a motion if he could have got a seconder.

Mr. Praser repeated that the proposals had not been shaken and gave an assurance that they could be reviewed at any time.

The debate, said Mr. Fraser, had been worth while in many respects, and some of the speeches had been of real value. In some respects, however, it had been disappointing. It would almost seem that in the minds of some members New Zealand was the only country with a man-power problem, whereas in point of fact what had happened in New Zealand had also happened in other countries, in some cases in a much more intensified way. In Australia, for example, since the outbreak of war with Germany, the number of Australian factory workers making goods for civilian use had been reduced by 63 per cent., from 534,500 to 194.000. This showed that the crisis, which some members said New Zealand was in the middle of, also existed in Australia in a much intensified form.

Mr. Fraser quoted further from the Australian figures, and said that Australia had more than 750,000 men in its three fighting forces. This was" one man in less than four of the total male population between 14 and 65. Of Australia's 5.000,000 men and women between 14 and 65, nearly 3,400,000 (or 68 per cent.) were either fighting or working. Seventy-two per cent of all Australia's factory workers were making munitions and war supplies.

Whereas New Zealand was considering a reduction of its forces, Mr. Curtin had made it abundantly clear that he was considering no relaxation whatsoever, but if anything an increase. They had to be careful in New Zealand that anything they did did not handicap their brothers and comrades in Australia. LONG AND WEARY JOB. Mr. Fraser said they all knew there was a very difficult, long, and weary job ahead. Occasionally there would be spectacular victories, which were not so sweeping in their results as similar victories would be under different circumstances. They were glad to have them, and as a result of recent events War Cabinet and the Government and the House felt that under existing circumstances they could reconsider the man-power situation and adjust the position. It was as well to refresh members with what they were pledged to when there were accusations made that the Government was overstepping its mandate and the War Cabinet was coming to decisions without submitting all details to the House. The country and the House were pledged to assist not merely in the defence of New Zealand. If the idea was in anybody's mind that the Government set out on September 3, 1939, simply to defend the shores of New Zealand, the sooner his mind was disabused of that idea the better.

"Let me repeat what I said on a former occasion," continued Mr. Fraser. "I would far sooner have the Government accused of going too far than ever run the risk of not doing enough. We can always readjust. We can i always reduce, but if we were not in la position to meet an emergency, or a maximum emergency, when the occasion arose, then I would feel that we were letting down the country and betraying our trust." NO DEMOBILISATION. In the proposals that had been put forward there was no question of demobilisation, said Mr. Fraser. The question was whether they could transfer men to industry for the time being and yet have them ready and mobilised. The War Cabinet considered that a reduction could be made on the lines he had indicated because the Dominion had sent men to the Pacific. It was true that the men had been sent into the Pacific to do garrison duty, but they were being built up to a combatant force.

The presence of the New Zealand forces had made possible the release of a whole American division. Consequently it was claimed that the sending of the New Zealanders to the Pacific area was a direct and effective contribution towards the war in the Pacific. Should that have been done? Did any member of the House say that New Zealand should not participate in the Pacific war? Mr. Lee: That is our theatre. OPPOSITION ATTITUDE. Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that the Opposition agreed that New Zealand should prosecute the war to the limit of its resources, but jit felt that there should be some bal- ! ance between the man-power required for production and that required for the military forces. That was the only | point the Opposition was raising.

Mr. Fraser said that was quite a reasonable attitude. He wanted to know whether every member of the House believed that the war should be prosecuted to the Limit of the Dominion's resources, irrespective of the theatre and wherever it was most effective. There seemed to be a train of thought running through the speeches of some of the Opposition members—it might have been inadvertent—that New Zealand ought not to go into the Pacific or engage in warfare in the Pacific. He could not imagine anybody saying that New Zealand must not send forces into the Pacific and that New Zealand was going to allow its American allies to do all the fighting in that area. It would be cold admiration if New Zealand stood by in the Pacific, where the Dominion's closest menace existed, and cheered the Americans. New Zealand could not do that.

If New Zealand was to remain in the Middle East and in the Pacific, that could not be done without reinforcements, and he did not know anyone who would seriously say that our forces should be allowed to die by attrition. If New Zealand was going to have a force in the Pacific that was to be a combatant force it must be reinforced. New Zealand could not put a garrison force in the Pacific alongside our American comrades and say that force was going to remain a garrison force while the Americans were fighting. If Admiral Halsey called on the New Zealanders to take part in combat, then they would take part. The country would not want them not to take part.

Mr. F. Langstone (Government, Waimarino): If the war continues for another two or three years could we keep up the pace we have started?

The Prime Minister: No, we couldn't.

Nobody could say when this war broke out how long it would last, he added, and they had to plan for a maximum effort.

Mr. Fraser said he was glad that the House had addressed itself to the manpower problem in a spirit of earnestness. There had been no undue complacency. TERRITORIAL SYSTEM? "I have heard no criticism of these proposals," said Mr. Fraser. "Can we do less? Can we release more for industry? Can anybody show us where it can be done? If members will show us we will consider it" The suggestion made by Mr. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) to the effect that New Zealand should go back to the Territorial system of defence would be examined. New Zealand had a Division in the Middle East and a force in the Pacific, and it was necessary also to have some forces in the Dominion to carry out certain duties. The commitments needed men and women, too. The proposals that had been placed before the House had not been weakened in any way by the debate. They had not been put forward as infallible or immovable. They might have to be re-examined if the circumstances demanded such a course.

Replying to Mr. H. E. Combs (Government, Wellington Suburbs), Mr. Fraser said that a force could be rearmed from industry in adequate time to meet a sudden danger. The Chiefs of Staff, however, did not want the period given.

Replying to references made to the possibility of greater casualties, Mr. Fraser said that unless there should be extraordinary changes, which he could not see, he did not think that casualties would be as great as in the last war, because the Air Force blasted the enemy before the Army attacked.