Points From Address-in-Reply Debate

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 52, 4 March 1944, Page 5

Points From Address-in-Reply Debate

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 3. Mr. W. S. Goosman continued his speech on the Address-in-Reply debate in the House this morning. He dealt with farm j)roduction and the need for an increase. The dairy-farmers were not satisfied with the Minister of Agriculture, he said, and the Government had to do something to get the confidence of the farmers if production were to bo maintained or increased. It could not be done by manpowering men into industry or by trying to drive the farmers. The Government should pass back to the producers control of their produce. If they were given absolute power to do so the farmers would increase production 4 o the extent required. Kir. F. Haekett (Lab., Grey Lynn) said that 45,000 electors had not voted for the Government nor for the Opposition; they had voted for a party that considered the Government had not gone far enough with socialisation. That feeling would probably grow, and the Government would have to take some notice of it. The world in general was demanding a social advance, and if we were to have a new order we must stride along the road of progress. The old conservatism was dead and buried, and even the Labour Party’s policy of the past was hardly in keeping with present trends. Mr. F. Findlay (Nat., Hamilton) pleaded for more dignity in the conduct of the affairs of the House. He knew ot no local body which would allow its affairs to be conducted as tlie business ot Parliament sometimes was. Speaking of defaulters’ camps, Mr. Findlay said he visited one recently and would testify that although the camps were clean and orderly there was nothing in them which could be done without, unless we wished them to become like Nazi concentration camps. He believed that hundreds of tho men iu the defaulters’ camps would put on a uniform and do a useful job for the war effort if they could only be made to see their responsibilities more clearly. He suggested that the number of defaulters in this war was partly the fruit of the seed sown by the Minister of Public Works during the last war when he was preaching pacifism. Government members: That is not true. Mr Findlay said tho Minister should go into the defaulters’ camps and tell tho men frankly why ho had changed his mind since the last war and was now discharging his duties enthusiastically. It would probably result in many of the defaulters putting on a uniform and doing useful war service, even it the beliefs forbade them to carry arms. Mr C. M. xilliams said Mr. Holland’s speech was mischievous, irresponsible and dangerous, and calculated to cause dissatisfaction among members of the services. Had the speech been made iu other circumstances it might have been termed seditious. Mr. Holland knew perfectly well that no fit man was retained in a job unless his case had been most carefully considered. Mr Williams contended that New Zealand’s stabilisation policy had been more successful than those of other countries, but it should be carried to its logical conclusion by adjusting our exchange to. its actual present-day position that would obviate many of the difficulties confronting the Government today. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 1 o’clock.