HOUSE ADJOURNS DEBATE

Timaru Herald, Volume CLIII, Issue 22529, 13 March 1943, Page 4

HOUSE ADJOURNS DEBATE

Manpower Question Full Discussion Desired (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, March 12. The debate on manpower in the House has been deferred and will now open on Wednesday morning next. The original intention was for the debate to begin on Thursday night, but consideration of Government Bills precluded tills being done and there was a postponement until to-day. However, it was well on in the afternoon before the Bills were finally disposed of, and in view of the time the House agreed to the suggestion by the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) to adjourn for the week-end to enable a full discussion on the manpower and regrouping proposals brought down by the War Cabinet to start on Wednesday. Proposals Outlined Mr Fraser spoke briefly, contenting himself at this stage with giving a general outline of the proposals. He emphasised the desire of himself and the War Cabinet to have a full and free discussion, with members of ths House taking a full share of responsibility. Full support for the adjournment was given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland), who said he knew of nothing more important than the manpower question. The matter did want thrashing out and they could not do this by starting late in the afternoon after members had expected to leave for their homes that day. It might be possible to finish the debate on Wednesday in one day if the House sat in the morning, but, if it took two days, what did it matter as long as they did the job thoroughly? Country Too Complacent The Prime Minister said he agreed with the Member for Auckland East, Mr F. W. Schramm (Government) in the Address-in-Reply debate that there was a danger of the country becoming too complacent. Mr Fraser said he did not think there was any danger of the House becoming complacent. “We know,” he said, “the hard and grim struggle ahead of us, but circumstances do warrant a reconsideration of the situation, and we have to face up to what the military requirements of the country are and what industry needs. ’ The Prime Minister went on to indicate the determining factors which had to be considered, adding that there was room for discussion and difference of opinion on the proposals by the War Cabinet. There was, for instance, the question of maintenance of two Divisions overseas. The War Cabinet believed that these Divisions could be maintained for the year under review at fighting strength and should be ;o maintained. When success was achieved in Tunisia, then the question would arise of the further role of the Second Division, but that did not prevent reconsideration of the position at any time when the House i et again m May, or at any future time. There must of course be stability in New Zealand’s programme. They could not change or veef around on every occasion. It was their duty to keep 'he whole position constantly under review, and the War Cabinet wished that to be done by all the Members and wanted the House to share the responsibility. Ability to Regroup Then, continued Mr Fraser, there was the question of industry in the redistribution of manpower. One of the paramount factors must be the ability to regroup to the full war establishment should the necessity arise and that ability must be retained. He did not think there would be any difference of opinion about that. The mass of equipment now m possession of units must be adequately cared for and men required to rejoin the Army in the event of regrouping must be trained men. Training must be continued, Mr Fraser added, ’.ne War Cabinet was anxious to have the benefit of views of members of the whole House and would be pleased to have them at full length on Wednesday next.