Minister Surveys Rehabilitation

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 206, 31 August 1944, Page 4

Minister Surveys Rehabilitation

Strong Defence of Government’s Policy (Par Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Aug. JO. “A number of complaints are coming in about interjections which reflected no credit on the House,” said the Speaker (Mr. Schramm), rebuking members for too frequent interruptions of speakers, who, he said, must at times be almost inaudible to outside listeners if not inside the chamber. He pleaded with members to cooperate in according a good hearing to Hon. C. F. Skinner (who had Just commenced his speech). Mr. Schramm said that if there were no Improvement in future he would be obliged to ask the Prime Minister to move a motion concerning those members who were the most frequent offenders.

Mr. Skinner stressed that rehabilitation was not simply the job of the Government. It was the responsibility of politicians, workers, employers and all groups. The sooner that was realised inside the House and outside the better spin the ex-servicemen would get. There had been a good deal of futile and pointless criticism of rehabilitation during the debate and from other sources. Mr. Skinner said that while it was true that local bodies were not responsible for rehabilitation generally, they had a definite responsibility to find jobs wherever possible. One local body—of which the member for Patea was a member—had recently affirmed when asked to find a job for an ex-serviceman that rehabilitation was not its responsibility. Mr. Skinner said the workers had a, definite duty also to returned men. Some of the latter passing from the training centres to such jobs as building hall found other tradesmen reluctant to work with the trainees whereas there was a definite duty in such cases for those concerned to do everything possible to assist the returned men to become the fully qualified tradesmen they soon would be. The returned men themselves had a responsibility. There had been two cases only brought to his notice of men who had been away serving whose employers kindly made up the man's income to what it was before enlisting, yet very soon after they came home these two men had tried to change their Jobs. M>Skinner said in such cases there was a moral responsibility on the demobilised man to give it a go in his old job.

While in other countries it had bem made compulsory on employers to include a proportion of disabled men on their staff he thought that would be unnecessary here. It would be done voluntarily without the need for legislation. One difficulty in rehabilitating men had been that even members of organisations which had come to him asking him to do more for ox-servicemeu had themselves placed difficulties in the w.\y of returned men entering business and who had encountered opposition from other members of the trade. This had been done iff many cases by members of the 11.5. A. and other organisations.

Mr. Skinner said such opposition was not deliberate and when their duty was pointed out to those concerned they became most helpful, but the percentage of such cases had been too high. An instance was that of an ex-serviceman who had set up as a tobacconist and others in the trade had objected to his being supplied with certain brands of tobacco. “When I went to the persons concerned,” said Mr. Skinner, “I found that their own organisation had recently asked me to dp more for the ex-servicemen and they were thoroughly ashamed of themselves when tile effect of their opposition was pointed out.”

Mr. Skinner stressed that although all who had been in service were entitled to be fully rehabilitated, there must be priority for those who had made tho greatest sacrifice, otherwise the system

would break down entirely. A good deal had been said about delays in handling rehabilitation claims. He agreed that not all the delays could be justified, but said departments, like businesses and farmers, had been handicapped by staff shortage. Despite the criticism, however, there were some bright spots. Recently a man In Taranaki w’as delivering milk to a factory five days after his application for a farm was heard. Matty cases had be*m settled in a reasonably brief period and he had met hundreds of grateful men and women who had been very successfully rehabilitated in a business, in a home or in a desired occupation.

•The Rehabilitation Board had to have the final say, Mr. Skinner said, and committees which had sent along recommendations that thu Board could not approve had been hurt. Hundreds of case# of the grading of farmers had been considered and he did not know* of one case where the Board had been wrong when it did not agree with the grading of the committee. Members all knew wliat had happened when inexperienced men were placed on farms after the last war, so surely they could not object to the Board being careful about not 2naking the same mistakes again. He did not claim that the Rehabilitation Department or the Government had looked after every man who had returned. The majority of the returned men had re-established themselves, and that was all to the good because that was the best form of rehabilitation. He agreed that decentralisation of rehabilitation would help and could assure the House that decentralisation was on the way. Replying to criticism of the Government’s lack of a land development scheme, the Minister said members knew that farmers throughout New Zealand were short of materials and fertilisers for development, nnd if the Lands Department started to develop land it would have to take some of the materials and fertilisers the farmers wanted. Production wns paramount and farmers must be kept supplied with all that could be given to them. The only reduction he would countenance was the allocation of the district quota of fertilisers to soldier settlers and that meant a reduction to other farmers. He would be happy to get on with hundreds of thousands of acres of Crown land that could be developed an soon as he could do so. If the Opposition were not satisfied with rehabilitation, he asked the Leader of the Opposition to appoint a committee of Ills owm colleagues who could have all the flies and facilities placed at their disposal so that they could report on what had been done. Mr. Skinner defended the Land Sales Act and said that of 222 farm sales under the Act the aggregate reduction In prices asked was £6147, while in 2681 urban sales the saving had amounted to £236,830. The Act had checked the activities of speculators, but genuine sellers were offering land as freely as ever. Mr. W. S. Goosmatt (Waikato) expressed regret that the Government was not making provision for postwar expansion of industry by easing taxation. The Government was farming tho taxpayers in the good old leasehold style—taking all they could get and putting nothing bank, because they knew their lease was running to an end. The Government was leaving the country impoverished as the leasehold farmer usually left the land when his lease was up. The Government had held up payments on primary products while all other sections of the community had received two 5 per cent, increases. Mr. Goosman said he believed the Government had been preparing the ground for years in preparation for the situation that now existed. The Government had always intended to ask Britain for more for the products supplied, but had delayed doing so until the payments would have to he made in a lump sum and could be disposed of as the Government desired without political rep^rcus*lThe debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30.