NEED FOR CALL-UP

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 123, 26 May 1945, Page 8

NEED FOR CALL-UP

REPLY TO MR. POLSON

PA. HAMILTON, May 25. "One of the most misleading statements yet given to the Press in connection with this wax- is that of the Acting Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Poison, in his letter (which I have not yet received) published in yesterday's Press," said the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Nash) today. "Mr. Poison protests against the calling up of a further 5000 of our man-power, but apparently ignores the statement issued by the Minister of National Service, which said quite clearly that the men referred to were not in the meantime liable for mobilisation. "The Gazette notice was the normal routine that has been followed since the outbreak of war. It covers all those who have attained the age of 18 years since the previous call-up in November, 1944. None of these youths of 18 years will be called up for overseas service till they are past the age of 20 years. None of them will be liable to go overseas for Army purposes till they have passed the age of 21. Mr. Poison knew this was the normal procedure and yet has set out an emphatic protest against this procedure being followed. "But let us look at what Mr. Poison has to say. He advises that the National Party holds the opinion that, unless Britain specifically requests the transfer of our troops to the Near East (perhaps he means the Far East) or some other theatre of war, they should come home, but that in any event the National Party thinks the matter is of such importance that Parliament should meet at once. Mr. Poison points out that the sacrifices made and services rendered by New Zealand have already been recognised by Britain and the Allies. This is quite true, but it would be as well at this point to consider the question of relative sacrifice if the contributions of Britain and of Australia are appreciated. "Is there any right-thinking person] who would suggest that we should pullj out and leave Britain and Australia to do the fighting and leave Australia to fight her own battles after she had promised to come to our aid in 1942 when things looked difficult and we had promised to go to her aid if things were difficult there? Should we pull out and leave Australia to fight? But. further still, should we pull out and leave Britain to send her troops 10,000 miles to fight pur battles? Of course. they are Britain's battles and Australia's battles and our battles, too. 3 have never known New Zealanders to let someone else do their fighting for them without doing their share. "Let us look at this from another angle. Suppose Britain felt that she had had enough and decided to pull out of the Pacific war. Presume for a moment that Australia, where the man-power position is a great deal worse than here in New Zealand, should decide to pull out. Is it not a correct picture that this job is a British Commonwealth job and that Britain, Australia, India, and New Zealand all have their parts to play, as well as the United States and the other United Nations? None of them can justifiably claim that they should only stay at home and produce food, "As I see the whole picture, it is our job to produce food to the maximum, but also to make our contribution as determined by agreement with the United Kingdom toward finishing the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment."