DEFENCE OF DOMINION

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1938, Page 9

DEFENCE OF DOMINION

By Telegraph—Press Association.

TRAINED FORCE NEEDED PROTECTION OF TRADE HELP FOR INDUSTRIES

Wellington, Last Night. The need for a defence system adequate for the protection of New Zealand's trade was dealt with by Mr. J. A. Roy (Opp., Clutha) in the House of Representatives to-day. He stated that the threat of war was much greater now than in 1913. Comparing the value of trade at that time with the present he argued that more should now be spent on defence. In 1913, said Mr. Roy, New Zealand had 30,000 men in training, whereas to-day the defence force was 7000 and of those only 3000 had gone into camp last year. "When a house is strongly defended burglars are less likely to enter it, he said, "and if a country is strongly defended it is safer from invasion." If New Zealand had 20,000 trained men the country would be reasonably safe. It was generally admitted that New Zealand and Australian troops were the best storm troops in the world but when they landed at Gallipoli they had been held back by an inferior force. From that he came to the conclusion that any force attempting to invade New Zealand would require to be ten to one to have a chance of success. In other words, a strongly defended country was sure of bloodless victory in addition to secupity from invasion. A strong defence force would help industries, such as the wool industryControl of Finance. Mr. C. L. Carr (Govt., Timaru) said that the present Gcvernment, by coptrolling the finance of the coqntoy, had taken charge of exchange, currency and credit and it had reduced costs. It had reduced Ihe highest cost of all to farmers, namely interest charges and was protecting them from financial marauders who had been responsibie for the conditions of the last slump. The geiitlemen on the other side of the House had often spoken of rugged individualism as opposed to socialism and had accused members on the Goyernment benches of not bejng religjous, he continued. He would like to quote the following sentence: "We are members one of another; no man liveth to himself or dieth to himself." Where was their rugged individualism then? he iasked. Rugged individualism was not orjly antisocialistic but also anti-social. Socialism was nothing but the articulation and implementation of social functions and duties.

Under the guaranteed price, said Mr. Carr, the Opposition said that farmers had lost the ownership of their produce. What did they want, he asked. Did they want to keep it? He knew if he were a bootmaker and had made a pair of boots he would be only too glad to lose the ownership of his produce to a buyer. He asked if the Opposition would deny that their publicity had been submitted to a certain reputable firro for circulatjon through that firm's circuit but the firrq had refused to put Opposition propaganda over for them. Mr. S. G. Holland: Who are you talking about? Mr. Carr: The Fuller-Hayward circuit. Transferring to Sheep.

Mr. .Carr admitted that some farmers were transferring from dairy produce to sheep. The Opposition stated that the reason was that they did not like the guaranteed price but this was not the real reason. It was because stock and station agents were getting nothing from the marketing of dairy produce but they were from wool and they refused to finance farmers unless they changed from dairy te sheep farming. He also referred to railway freight charges, stating that until the Government took over all road transport services compcting with the railways it would be impossible for the railwqys to rationalise freight charges. Mr. Carr also entered a plea for the establishment of secondary industries in secondary towns. Why should they all be kept in large towns, he asked. There they tended to create slum conditions, but if they were established in secondary towns it would allow the workers to be in touch with the open country. Mr. R. Coulter (Govt., Waikato) referring particulariy to the dairying industry, stated all the figures which had been produced showed that dairy factory costs had not increased out of all proportion to the guaranteed price. They frequently heard the words "confiscate" and "commandeer" in relation to the guaranteed price, and it had been suggested that producers had the right to control the marketing of their own produce. The Dominion had that in the years gone by, said Mr. Coulter, and what had happened. There had been an orgy of speculation and manipulation by those who were farming the farmer. It would be the height of folly to go back to that system.

Compen&ated Price, Concerning the compensated price he said that when the scheme had first been introduced it was intended that a price would be paid the producer which would give him a suhstantial increase on London parity, but it was soon seen that this would nbt obviate the violent fluctuations of the market under which the farmer could not, with any certainty, budget ahead in regard to his income. The promoters of the scheme had soon realised that it would be impracticable and a new system was suggested, based on four points which v/ere at presant all included in the Government's present guaranteed price scheme. The Government had no need to apologise for taking anyone else's scheme because the four points of the compensated price Scheme were already embodied in its own policy. The Government had done everything possible to meet the farmers and l\e was of the opinion that the farmers had every confidence that the Government would handle the situation in the right way. The Government had proved a good friend to the farmer, especially the dairy farmer, and also to their employees. Ihe most extraordinary thing about the speeches of the Opposition, said Mr. Coulter, was that they should desire to create the impression that the Government, in Wishing to socialise the means of production, distribution and exchange, was thereby nationalising- the land. Actually, he said, th-> Government had given back fo the farmers the equities and goodwills of which they had been robbed and he was glad to say that there was no possibility of the Government taking those equities and goodwills from the farmers again.

"Fairer Criticism." The Minister of Mines, the Hon. P. C. Webb, stated that the Press of Great Britain had been fairer in its criticism of the present New Zealand Budget than that of the New Zealand Press, in which he had failed to find a single word of

eulogy or even fair criticism. He went on to refer to the j.ccusations which the Opposition had made regarding the large expenditure on public works and said that rtoney in this direction was being expended principally on roads to enable backblock farmers to get to the markets and motorists to use the highways with a greater degree of safety. A sum of £2,000,000 had been spent on main highways in the last year. One must be irrtpresssd, he said, on travelling through the conutry, with the necessity for pushing on with an up-to-date roading system. There was not a county in the country, he said, where more roads were not badly needed. Personally he considered they were not spending enough public works imoney on roads and ramps to eliminate dar.gerous level crossings. In regard to the latter the Minister was doing a .job which should have been done years ago. Mr. Webb went or to refer to the Hon. R. Semple's survey of backblock roads, 6tating that when tl.e present scheme was finished it would mean that backblock settlers who had not had prop' road access for 40 years wculd have good roads. Already, in little over a year, he said, 1500 miles of backblock roads had been completed.