LAST MAN ON FARM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9790, 13 October 1917, Page 8

LAST MAN ON FARM

GOVERNMENT'S POSITION MADE CLEAR DEFENCE MINISTER. DECLARES HE NEVER BROKE HIS WORD. Sir James Allen (Minister for Defence) stated in tho House of Representatives yesterday afternoon that he regretted very much indeed tho allegation made hy tho hon. member for Waitaki (Mr J. Anstey) tho previous day, that ho had broken a promise he had made. Ho had never broken his word, ho declared; and never would. When the hen. member had made that statement ho knew from Mr Gray (the secretary to the Recruiting Board) that directions had been sent that the man ho had referred to was not to bo called up for sendee till his case had been again hoard by the board. With regard to the question of the last man on the farm, ho recognised that if the country was to go on and pay its way they must keep up the productivity of tho Dominion. Ail along he bud been as anxious to conserve the farming interests of tno country as to get men for the front. Tito statement ho had mad© in the House recently to that effect was no w printed, and would be circulated at once to the Military Service Boards. MEMORANDUM BY PRIME MINISTER. In addition, the Prime Minister, as chairman of the Recruiting Board, was issuing the following further statement on the matter: I am desired to again stress the seriousness of the uosition which is arising in the Dominion owing to the depletion of skilled farm workers tlirough enlistments in the Expeditionary Force. The Government is of opinion that production must be maintained to the fullest possible extent in view of tho enormous financial burden imposed on tho Dominion by the war. It is considered absolutely essential, therefore, that each farm should be left with labour to work it and that in no case should the man who is doing the whole of the work of his own farm, or tho last son on tho farm of parents who are unable through age or infirmity to do the work themselves, or skilled agricultural labourers, be taken lor military service, unless, with respect to lie last named, efficient labour is available to replace them. I am therefor© directed to say that the Government deems it necessary to advise your board to adjourn indefinitely all cases where the appellant comes within the foregoing category, in order that he may continue in work which is now as important and as essential as military service. It is further recommended, that all such exemptions should be mad© conditional on the reservist remaining in his occupation and reporting to that effect at regular in* terrals at the nearest Defence In view of the decision. of the Government that productivity must be maintained to the fullest possible extent,, the Minister for Defence has decided to defer the calling up of those appellants who are due to proceed to camp with the October draft in order that their cases may be resubmitted to § the boards for further consideration.— (Signed) J. D. GRAY. THE POSITION OF SHEPHERDS. Sir James Allen thought that that ought to put the matter in the proper l position, and ought to conserve the great industry of the country, which ho was anxious, and the Government, and he was sure all members of the House,were also anxious, to conserve. (Hear, hear.) Air G. Smith (Pahiatua) asked whether tho words agricultural _ labour included the shepherds, mentioning the case of a largo sheopfarmer who was loft with only 'bno shepherd. Sir James Allen: “No, I don’t think it will include tho shepherds, but the Military Service Boards have been advised with regard to shepherds. Although shepherds are not put down as most essential, with regard to high country tho musterers have been classed as most essential. It is the obvious duty of a farmer who thinks a man essential to appeal: and appeals must also be lodged in the cases I have mentioned. If there is no appeal, the boards have no jurisdiction.” Mr E. P. Lee (Oamaru): “But if the Military Service Boards decline to follow the instructions of the Government?” Sir James Allen: “It must be a matter for their judgment. At any rate, wo have made our opinion as definite as possible; but. an appeal must be lodged, or the boards cannot do anything.” “I WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED.Air Anstey reiterated tho statement made tho day before, adding that there wero four other cases of exactly tho same sort, but even worse. One man, ho stated, bad been arrested and put in gaol over-night. Next day, however, ho was put out of gaol without any apology. In another case a man was arrested, though he showed, his leave notice to the constable; and there were two similar cases of arrests whore tho men had been granted leave, though they had not got their notices. “What guarantee, therefore,” asked tho hon. member, “have we that this man would not have been treated in exactly tho same way? 1 was perfectly justified in the remarks I made.” Sir James Allen; “The hon. member was not justified. He was informed by Air Gray that instructions had been sent that this man need not go into camp.” . The Alinister added that that arrests mentioned had been made by tho police, and he was not responsible for tho police. Air Anstey: “The warrant came from Trontham in all cases.” STATUTORY EXEAIPTION WANTED Air H. J. H. Okey (Taranaki); “We ought to have something by right—something on the Statute Book—with regard to the exemption of the last man on the farm. We can’t depend on the boards. Take it out of their hands.” Sir James Allen said that he would not recommend an amendment ot the Act in that direction. It was for the House to say what they wanted, and, as Alinister, he would try to carry it out. WHY NOT A BOARD OP APPEAL? Sir John Findlay: “Why not set up a Board of Ajjpeal?” Sir James Alien; “I don’t think an Appeal Board wovdd bo much use.” Replying to other questions, tho Minister remarked that the Alilitary Service Boards, upon inquiry into ap-

parently bad cases of hardship, often found that there was more than one side to the question. Air C. H. Poole (Auckland West): “While squatters and shepherds are being considered, what is the position of tho waterside workers?” The hon. member cited the case of a wharf labourer who had lost a week’s work through having to attend a IMedical Service Board for examination. Sir James Allen resented any suggestion that there was the slightest distinction made by tho Defence Department between -tho squatters and wharf labourers; and stated that provision had been made that any man should be paid who lost tinle attending a Medical Board. If the hon. member would give particulars of the ease ho would have inquiries made. Dr Newman (Wellington East) mentioned the case of a farmer seventyfive years whose last son had been taken away, and asked the Alinister whether ho would be released. Sir James Allen replied that he was not prepared to say until inquiries had been made.