PARLIAMENT AND FORCES

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 July 1941, Page 9

PARLIAMENT AND FORCES

TRAINING OF TERRITORIALS HOME GUARD GRIEVANCES WELLINGTON, July 23. When the House met at 2.30 p.m., the Budget debate was continued by Mr. J. B. F. Cotterill (Govt., Wanganui). The member was in his uniform as a Sergeant of the Territorials. He dealt especially with the training of our armed forces, both in the Dominion and overseas. A great lesson to be learned from the campaigns in Crete and in Greece, he said, was that the day of the single-shot service rifle was something of the past, and that to be successful infantry, in modern warfare,,..must be equipped with automatic arms. The sooner our troops overseas, and in New Zealand, too, were so equipped, the sooner we would be able to bring this war to a successful conclusion. “Since the outbreak of the war,” continued Mr. Cotterill, “we have been able to bring into being a very efficient defence force in the Dominion. The system of 12 weeks’ intensive military training for our Territorials has had surprisingly effective results, and many of these men have probably learned more in that period than the average member of the expeditionary Forces learned before they left for overseas. It is necessary that that standard should be maintained.” Mr. Cotterill drew attention to the infrequency with which some Territorials attended the regular parades after their period of 12 weeks’ intensive training had been completed. The Minister, he suggested, should take action to inflict some penalty for non-attendance at sucn parades. Mr. Cotterill also mentioned the discrepancy in the ages of the two classes of the Territorials —the men from 18 to 20 years, and the men from 41 to 45 years. Many of the latter age group, he said, were not of the type to make successful soldiers. He thought that the Unit Commanders should be given discretion to return those men who would not make successful soldiers, to their civil occupations. Mr. W. S. Goosman (Nat. Waikato), said he was quite satisfied that it was distasteful to men overseas to hear of wrangling going on in the House. The Opposition could not accept responsibility for it. It was forced upon it by the Government. If the Government wanted another member of the War Cabinet from the Opposition why did it not ask the Opposition to nominate a member. The Opposition had made numerous offers to the Government- The latter’s reply was that “the Labour Party is not ready.” The only conclusion the Opposition could reach was that the Government wanted to get Mr. Holland into the War Cabinet to shackle him. He continued that the Government wished to have as many people as possible dependent on the State, and to have as many as possible working for the State and drawing their living from it. When the National Party became the Government, its policy would be directly opposite. It would seek to have as many peo□le as possibe independent of the State, owning their homes and living their own lives.

Dealing with the Home Guard, Mr. Goosman said there was a considerable amount of unrest and dissatisfaction among members regarding equipment and other matters. He suggested that the Government should appoint someone to discuss with those in charge of the Home Guard various grievances alleged, and restore the organisation to a position it should occupy. Mr J. Robertson (Govt., Masterton) said that Opposition members had spoken of the Government’s insulation policy and had contended that it had been dropped. If, however, it had not been for that insulation policy, where would the farmers of the Dominion be to-day? He declared that, had it not been for the guaran-' teed price and the guaranteed market, the farmers of New Zealand would be now facing about the worst economic crisis in their history. He charged the Opposition with having exploited, on every possible occasion for Party purposes, the Government’s difficulties arising from the war conditions. Mr Robertson described the Budget as one to promote home and family life. It was so brilliant that many of the critics had been quite nonplussed. Replying to an interjection by Mr Holland, who asked if he thought that there would be a general election, Mr Robertson said that he certainly thought that an election would be preferable to a National Government with the Hon. Member in it. MR SEMPLE AND SPEAKER. The Minister of Railways (Mr Semple) continued the Budget debate after the tea adjournment. He said that he had listened to the Leader of the Opposition in criticism of the Budget, and it seemed to him that Mr Holland, instead of indicating any weak points in the Government’s financial statement, had held out an olive branch. Outside of the House, however, Mr Holland had held the dagger of an assassin in his hand! Mr Semple then proceeded to quote criticisms which Members of the Opposition had levelled at the Government outside of the House. The Member for Otago Central (Mr AV. A. Bodkin) - also had urged unity, but when outside of the House he had stated that the Minister of Finance was guiding the country in the direction of Nazism. The Speaker (Mr Barnard) here intervened. He stated that, although such statements might be made outside of the House, he would definitely prevent such attacks being made on Members in the chamber.

The Acting-Prime Minister (Mr Nash) rose to a point of order. He asked: Did. the Speaker’s ruling mean that, although anything might be said outside of the House about the Government or about a Member of the House, it could not be replied to inside the House? The Speaker replied that he could not allow statements gravely reflecting on Members, although made outside of the House, to be repeated in the House. Such statements could be replied to outside of the House. Mr Nash: What procedure is to be adopted in the case of statements that might tend to disintegrate the Government? The Speaker: The proper course m dealing with such statements would be for a Member to introduce the matter in the form of a substantive motion. , , Mr Semple said that he had no other course than to adopt the Speaker’s ruling. Continuing his speech, Mr Semple said that he was of opinion that the people of the Dominion should know of the wicked things that had been said, and he would take some other opportunity, in future, of telling them. ’ „ . Mr J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn): Only last week I was likened to Hitler by members of the Labour Party. Mr Sempler “I am sorry about that. No one has any right to liken any man to that bloodthirsty monster.” Mr Semple next referred to a recent address which was made by the Member for Tauranga (Mr Doidge), who had quoted an unknown soldier as saying that the New Zealand troops could not shoot in Greece or in Crete. He (Mr Semple) did not think that Mr Doidge intentionally intended to cast a slur, but he had done so unintentionallv. The Minister then quoted a broadcast by. Mr Geoffrey Cox, the Rhodes Scholar and War Correspondent,' from the Middle East, in which Mr Cox said that he

knew lor a fact that, against the Germans, in a straight-out scrap, with equal weapons, the New Zealanders had it on the Germans every time. Mr Cox said that the New Zealanders had been taught to shoot more accurately than the Germans. The Minister also referred to a report from the Middle East Headquarters, which referred to the remarkable rifle shooting of the New, Zealand troops. MR LEE AND WAITEMATA. Mr J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn) said that the Budget did not contain many things of value to the community. It did contain “a good deal of arsenic behind the sugar.” First, he would, like to say something about the Waitemata by-election. He was not a squealer, and could take his gruel. In Waitemata, his party hao had a good candidate and a good cause. They would “come again.” Personally, he thought the contest showed a definite swing to the National Partv. That was more the pity, because he did not think that the National Party had a constructive idea. Mr Osborne (Govt., Onehunga), in his speech, criticised the activities of members of the Democratic Labour Party in connection with the Waitemata by-election. He also detailed the circumstances relating to the severance of their connection with the official Labour Party. Mr Osborne dealt with the differences between himself and Mr Lee. Mr Osborne had not completed his speech when the debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30.