WARM ATTACK

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVI, Issue 22991, 7 September 1944, Page 4

WARM ATTACK

Articles Reflecting On

Forces Men Not Needlessly Mobilised Mr Fraser Emphatic (N.Z.P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 6. The Government’s policy for financing the war was to pay as it went as far as possible by means of war loans and taxation, said the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser), speaking in the Budget Bebate in the House to-night. This enabled the people to use their savings to assist the country. In spite of the rapidity with which the war was proceeding, it was necessary to remember that even when our armies were in Berlin the war would not be over; we would still face a relentless foe in the Pacific and our war spending must remain high until we had discharged our full share in the defeat of Japan. Unjust Criticism of Forces Mr Fraser said it was amusing, if not disturbing, and even tragic, to see how some people and sometimes some newspapers—though most of them had been extremely helpful to the war effort —criticising not only the Government but members of the Home Forces who had sacrificed much for the common defence. Even in the House, and in at least one newspaper, persons in high positions in the defence Forces had been charged with an offence which, if the charge were true, would be to their permanent disgrace. It had been alleged that they were keeping forces mobilised for their own advantage. “Any person who would believe that has a strangely distorted brain and a diseased heart if they think that any of the distinguished men at the head of the Forces would do that. I want to give these allegations a complete denial and ram the lie down the throats of those who uttered them,” said Mr Fraser.

The Prime Minister read from an article in the “New Zealand Herald” concerning the Air Force. He said it was a contemptible statement and any member of the House who gave it credence or circulation —he could not believe any member would sink to that —was also casting an unwarranted reflection on the leaders of the Air Force.

Mr Fraser, answering an interjection by Mi- F. W. Doidge (National, Tauranga) as to whether the statement was true, asked if Mr Doidge or any other member wished to say that Air Vice-Marshal L. M. Isitt, for instance, was guilty, such as the article in question had alleged, of keeping men needlessly mobilised. Mr Doidge: Let us have his word that it is not true. Mr Fraser referred to other prominent members oi the Air Force and said that the air commodore in charge of personnel had left a lucrative V legal practice to serve at less than he could earn in civil life. Freedom of the Press Tire House and the country owed Mr R. M. Algie (National, Remuera) a debt of gratitude for his definition of the freedom of the Press. Mr Fraser added that Mr Algie’s conception of the freedom of the Press was not the popular one, but it was certainly clear and definite. Mr Algie had made it deal' that it was not the freedom of editors or leader writers, so he had supported all that had been said on the Government benches regarding the writing of newspaper articles. How could people who were not free themselves carry freedom into effect? he asked. The opinions expressed were not these of the men who wrote but of the owners of the papers. ’ Mr W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato); What about the “Standard"? Mr Fraser said that also applied to the "Standard.” and Government members wanted the people to understand that it applied to all papers. The principle enunciated by Mr Algie was not the principle of those who had fought for the freedom of the Press because they had fought for the freedom of the individual. It would be a good thing if statements made in any newspaper which had to be refuted by the Government should carry an obligation that the reply should be printed as prominently as the original article. If the freedom of the Press were to be maintained under democratic principles, something of that nature would have to be considered.

The Opposition wanted the sales tax, the surtax and the excess profits tax removed, said Mr Fraser. That would mean that the Government would have to throw away more than £21.000,000. That showed that the Opposition not only did not count the cost but also did hot give thought to the suggestions put forward. Opposition members interjected that they had not suggested any such thing. Mr Fraser said the repudiation showed that Opposition speakers did not know what they meant. .They apparently got up and spouted like a Rotorua geyser which produced both water and mud. Stabilisation Mr Fraser said the Government’s stabilisation policy had been approved by the country at the last election. The policy had not been 100 per cent perfect, but nobody with any understanding of the complexity of our economic system could expect that without expecting the impossible. Stabilisation in New Zealand had worked more efficiently than in any other country which had adopted it. He admitted that if on the wartime price index there were included some commodities which were not obtainable, it was small consolation for anybody to be told that they should not pay more than a certain figure for a particular commodity if it was unobtainable, and they had to buy either an inferior or a clearer article. That had happened in some cases, particularly in regard to clothing, owing to the concentration of production on Army uniforms and other wartime requirements creating a short-, age of some articles which were included in the prices index. When that happened the purpose of the index was defeated, and the matter had been brought to the notice of the Government, which hadisought the co-oper-ation of manufacturers. That cooperation had been extended, and at the present time negotiations were in train which aimed at improving the production of some items included in the price index which had been in short supply. The aim was to produce these articles, particularly items of clothing which were needed by the public, at lower prices. Any increase in the costs of the raw materials involved would be met from the War Expenses Account. Parents who had had worries regarding the provision of clothing for their families should know that their difficulties were not being overlooked. It was no use slurring over facts in wartime.

Mr Fraser said that New Zealand’s State housing scheme was unsurpassed in any other country in its standard of housing and in its general conception. Regarding the present shortage, the Government had its intentions and its plans, but people could not live in these. Houses were a matter of organisation by small and big builders. It was ridiculous to contend that the Government, through State building, had eliminated the small builder. The contrary was the cose.