NATIONAL REGISTER

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20920, 27 September 1939, Page 12

NATIONAL REGISTER

WEALTH AND MANPOWER VIEWS OF FARMERS DISCUSSION AT TE AWAMUTU (Special to Times) TE AWAMUTU, Tuesday. Various aspects of the important issue as to whether New Zealand should adopt some method of conscripting not only man-power but also private as well as public wealth were discussed at the last monthly meeting of the Te Awamutu branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union After an interesting and full exchange of views, an amendment was carried as follows;—“That a national register for men available for service be compiled immediately, and that men be called up as required for military service, with due regard to the maintenance of primary and secondary industries.” The discussion was opened by Mr C. J. Flay, who stressed the fairness of conscription of men and pointed out that over 75 per cent of the besl men in the country would enroll voluntarily but others would hold back. Sacrifices would have to be made by everj'body. The man whose wealth was conscripted did not make a sacrifice equal to that of the man who went to the front with the possibility of being crippled for life. He moved that, in this time of wai emergency, the executive support the principle of conscription of manpower simultaneously with conscription of money-wealth and money profits so that the degree of sacrifice may be spread in the most equitable manner, but the executive definitely opposed any form of confiscation of money-wealth, Mr Parlane seconded the motion, and Mr F. Gooder asked for a clearer exposition of what was meant by the term “conscription of wealth and man-power.” The mover replied that his conception of the term was conscription for the purposes of defence measures. Mr J. G. Wynyard thought that reference to conscription of wealth should be omitted and thus fruitless argument would be saved. Equal Sacrifice Supporting the principle that if there was to be conscription of manpower, there should be conscription of wealth, Mr W. J. Hodgson thought that the war would be fought on the basis of the wealth of nations and the individuals of nations, and probably the whole world would be in arms ere long. The last war saw a great sacrifice of man-power but not an equal sacrifice of wealth. Prosecution of the war to a successful end required the use of wealth, which was as vital for the purpose as man-power.

Mr G. R. Lawry said that men in essential occupations should be paid at the same rates as the soldiers. He objected to the possibility of one section making large profits at the expense of others. Taxation was the only way to conscript wealth, said Mr F. Gooder The only way of paying for the war was through production, and for that reason he thought that the meeting should confine itself to conscription of man-power, as the Government could be relied upon to conscript wealth. Mr Wynyard considered that in order to pay for the war every individual would have to pay to the best of his ability. There would be taxation of profits, and the present Government could be trusted to deal with that aspect. What he was concerned about was equality of sacrifice. Mr Wynyard then moved the amendment. Confiscation Not Intended Mr G. T. Crawley considered that, though Mr Flay’s ideals were admirable, the wording of his motion meant confiscation, if not directly, then by implication. Confiscation was not intended, but taxation would collect the money required for the war effort. Confiscation really meant socialism.

The president, Mr W. G. Neill, expressed his opinion that all the resources of the country should be available in case of emergency, and if there was to be conscription of man-power there should be conscription of wealth. Mr Wynyard replied that he felt that despite the side-issues introduced, conscription of man-power would prevent people evading their responsibilities and there would not be any recourse to such practices as distribution of white feathers. If a man was not on active service, there would be some good reason for it. for the authorities would decide and not the individual. The amendment was carried by a substantial majority, Mr Hodgson explaining that he did not vote because he favoured both the motion and the amendment. After all, he said, it was merely the manner of approaching the question that mattered.