N.Z. MANPOWER

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 65, 19 March 1943, Page 3

N.Z. MANPOWER

WIDELY DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT PRIME MINISTER SUMS UP (P.A.) Parliament Bldgs., March 18. Continuing the debate on manpower in the House of Representatives to-day, Mr. H. E. Combs contended that it would have been desirable to have a definite motion before the House for endorsement. It was hard to understand exactly what members were aiming for, and between a lo: of them there had been no finality as to what was the general consensus of opinion.

Replying to the debate, Mr. Fraser said that, while in some respects some of the speeches in the debate had been of real alue in the solution of the Dominion’s manpower problem, in other respects the debate had been disappointing. It would almost seem that in the minds of some members New Zealand was the only country with a manpower problem, whereas what had happened in New Zealand had also happened in other countries, in sdme cases in a more intensified way. In Australia, for instance, sirce the outbreak of war the number of Australian factory workers making goods for civilian use had been reduced by 63 per cent. After quoting further figures relating to Australia’s war effort, Mr. Fraser said that of Australia’s 5,000,000 men and women between the ages of 14 and 65, nearly 3.400,000, or 68 per cent., were either fighting, producing war supplies or doing essential or less important jobs which were part of the war effort, and 72 per cent, of all Australian factory workers were making munitions and war supplies. While New Zealand was considering a reduction in her forces. Mr. Curtin had made it plain that he was considering no relaxation but, if anything, an increase. Thev had to be careful in New Zealand that anything they did would not, handicap their brothers and comrades' in Australia, Mr. Farser continued. All knew we had a long, difficult, weary job ahead. The Government had been accused of going too far. bur he would repeat what he had said on a former occasion: “I would far sooner have the Government accused of too far than ever run the risk of not doing enough. We can always readjust; we can always reduce; bur if we were not in a position to meet the emergency when the occasion arose then I would feel we were letting down the country and betraying our trust.” Mr. Fraser added that he wanted to underline the point made by the Minister of Supply, namely, that the country, through Parliament, was pledged, and every year it renewed its pledge that, to the limit- of the country’s resources, New Zealand was in the war until the Nazi and Fascist power and the power of Japan was overthrown.

New Zealand was as much in the war and as strongly and wholeheartedly in the war before Japan came in as the Dominion was now.

Dealing with a question raised during the debate, that if New Zealand had an adequate Air Force the size of the Army could be cut down, Mr. Fraser said the War Cabinet had considered that proposition but did not think it justified at the present time. The time might come when thpy might be able to recommend it. In proposals that had been put forward there was no question of demobilisation. The question was whether they could transfer men to industry for the time being and yet have them ready and mobilised. The War Cabinet had considered that a reduction could be made on the lines indicated because the Dominion had sent men to the Pacific. It was true that men had been sent into the Pacific to do garrison duty, but they were being built up to a . combatant force. The presence of New Zealand forces had made possible the release of a whole American division. Consequently it was claimed that the sending of New Zealanders to the Pacific was a direct and effective contribution to the Pacific war. Did anyone say New Zealand should not participate in the Pacific? Mr. J. A. Lee: That is our theatre.

Mr. W. J. Polson said the Opposition agreed that New Zealand should prosecute the war to the limit of its resources but felt there should be a balance between manpower required for production and those needed for the military forces. Mr. Fraser said that was quite a reasonable attitude. He wanted to know whether every member believed the war should be prosecuted to the limit of four resources, irrespective of the theatre and wherever it was most effective. There seemed to be some train of thought that we should not take part in the Pacific war, and there also appeared to be a thought that not only should our division not be brought back from the Middle East, but if it were that that would carry with it some moral stigma. He would remind them that the House had decided that the division should remain in the Middle East in the meantime, but that did not mean that it could not change its decision if circumstances arose.

“We must have liberty to change our opinion.” he said. If a crisis arose within twelve hours and there was no opportunity of calling the House together, then the War Cabinet and Cabinet would make the decision, and if it was not possible to consult the War Cabinet or the Cabinet. he. with the guidance of his advisers, would make the decisions himself. No one objected to our doing our utmost to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific. No one would say we were going to allow the United States to do the fighting for us. The United States objective was to defeat Japan, and that was our objective, too, and this country was a good base for the United States forces. We were glad to have them here, but it would be cold admiration for their gallant deeds to stand by and cheer them on to fight alone. We could not have our men in the Pacific without reinforcing them, said Mr. Fraser, and we could not let cither the force in the Middle East or In the Pacific die of attrition. If we .-.ere going to have a force in the Pacific that was to be a combatant xorce it must be reinforced. New Zealand could not put a garrison force m the Pacific alongside our American comrades and say that the force was to remain a garrison force while the Americans were fighting. If Admiral

Halsey called on the New Zealanders to take part in the combat, then they would take part. The country would not want them not to take part. Just as trie American troops, after fighting in the Solomons, had come back to New Zealand and Australia to recuperate, so our men, if they did go info the combat zone for several months, would return to New Zealand. Mr. F. Langstoue: If the war was to continue for another two or three years, could we keep up the pace w c started? Mr. Fraser: No, we couldn’t. Continuing he said the relatives o! the men now in the Middle East were not all of one mind about the prospect oi those men going to the Solomons. Some preferred to have their lighting men under the conditions in the Middle East. “To me,” said Mr. Fraser, “it clear that, however long we maintain our division in the Middle East, we

can’t neglect our own front trenches m the Pacific.” *

It was oi overwhelming importance that New Zealand should snoulder its share in holding the gateway oi the Pacific.

Mr. Fraser also mentioned shipping difficulties in relation to New Zealands imports and exports. People, ae said, talked aoout shortages oi uns or that commodity, but they had to be reminded that the country might be approaching a pnase of the war when tnere might oe a greater shortage oi supplies man now. It might be necessary to ration commodities of which isew Zealand had a superabundance in order to help the Momer Country. Speaking of the Home Guard, Mr. Fraser said it had done a great jou and had never lost heart, in spite ogreat difficulties, it was 1-ooKeu on as an integral part ot the country's deience. He considered that 16 hours a month seemed quite a iair period oi training lor the Home Guard, unless anything could be produced to the The Leader of the Opposition he J stuled that tnere were ‘iu,obu single men in industry in New Zealand. Actually that was not so. Tnere »/ere 40,000 Grade 1 men still in industry, but 27,W0 of them were married and only 13,000 single men. I’ney were doing work regarded as essential, and had gone through the usual process ,61 appeal boards. Complaint had a’so been made that the number of r/ien required for the Temporary Stall’ was too high, but not one who was redundant would be kept. Replying to references made as to the possibility of greater casualties, Mr. Fraser said that unless there should be extraordinary changes he did not tl\ink casualties would be as great as in the last war, because the Air Force blasted the enemy before the Army attacked. The Prime Minister concluded by myihg that the proposals contained in the report before members had not been shaken, but. they could be reviewed at any time.

At the conclusion of debate the House rose until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 19, with the usual proviso that the Speaker be empowered to call it together at an eari-er date should occasion arise.