N.Z. MANPOWER CONTROL

Grey River Argus, 22 September 1944, Page 3

N.Z. MANPOWER CONTROL

MINISTER’S POSITION

Debated in House

WELLINGTON, Sept. 21. Speaking in the House to a votei oi £354,386 for the National Se , rvlc ? Na t" part'ment, Mr R. G. Gerard (Nat Mid-Canterbury) said the Depa t ment was an important one in tnat it had almost complete power to interfere with the lives of all P 6O ? 1 ® of the country. It was a wrong thine to have the Minister of such a department in another place where he could not be called to account. He did not criticise the Minister personally. It was the principle that he considered wrong. ' Mr Fraser said he would remind the' Member for Mid-Canterbury of the reasons for the appointment of Mr McLagan, who was appointee as part of the war Administration, and had adhered to his position when members of the Opposition, appointed at the same time, did not: If there were any charge against the administration of the department, it should be addressed to him, as he w.as responsible for Mr McLagan continuing in office. It had been suggested that he should have asked Mr McLagan to go to the country—to go through an unnecessary pantomime.

Mr'Gerard: Do you call going to the country an unnecessary pantomime? Mr Fraser: “Yes—in this case.” To raise the question as to whether or not Mr McLagan represented • an electorate or not was irrelevant. Mr Fraser said he had opposed Hon. Mr Masters holding the .portfolio of Education in the Upper House, but he had never objected to Sir Francis Bell being Attorney-General and Minister of Justice; and no one with a proper sense of proportion would have done so. Mr McLagan had been appointed during wartime, when circumstances were exceptional, and he had done a very good job. Mr Gerard moved that the vote be reduced by £5 as an indication that the House had no confidence in the arrangement which permitted the Minister-in-Charge of National Service to be a member of another place. Mi- Fraser said that there was a case for one chamber legislature, such as was functioning satisfactorily in Queensland, and that could be discussed at a later date, if desired.. He himself .approached the matter with a very open mind. He thought that members of the House, who were the elected representatives of the people, were the best judges of whethere or not there was need for a constitutional change. Mr Gerard’s amendment was rejected on the voices. Mr Fraser said that manpower direction would not continue any longer than was necessary, but during the war it was essential to the life of the country. Few liked being directed, but the sacrifices of those directed were small when compared with sacrifices of men overseas. In reply to a\ question, Mr Fraser said there were about six hundred military defaulters in camps. Twenty-five had escaped, and were still at large. There were also, he said, approximately 600 conscientious objectors, who were subject to direction. Members debated the question of domestic service. Mr Fraser said 2000 girls had gone into the land army, and, like girls who had gone with forces overseas, had done an excellent job. The time had come when they must find a new approach to the domestc service problem. There was no reason why .any woman able to do her own work, should not look after her own home. The real problem was to find help where the housewife was ill, or there were small children in the home. Above all what was wanted was a different status for domestic work.