FUTURE DEFENCE POLICY

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 232, 1 October 1930, Page 13

FUTURE DEFENCE POLICY

MINISTER'S EXPLANATION.

LEGISLATION THIS SESSION.

NATURE NOT YET INDICATED. (By Telegraph.— Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The appearance at an early date of legislation outlining the Government's proposals concerning the future defence of New Zealand was foreshadowed by the Minister of Defence, the Hon. J, G. Cobbe, in the House to-night, after a long debate on the defence estimates. An° adverse Reform amendment was defeated by 44 votes to 23. Various members had sought to gain an indication of the Government s policy. The Hon. W. D. Stewart (Reform, Dunedin West) inquired whether it was proposed to discharge members of the staff or to curtail expenditure in other directions, and also what sta*e had been reached in; the defence programme for the year. At present, he said, it was like giving the Minister a blank cheque, without knowing how he was going to fill it in. The Minister replied that it was not possible at present to indicate the manner in which economies would be made. However, proposals would be carried out within the estimate. As to the statement that he had expressed pacifist views and the belief that preparation for war meant war, lie declared he had said nothing of the kind. What he had said was that he could never understand that preparation for war meant peace. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) asked for a definite statement on the position of those members of the territorial .forces who wished to continue training. He said that 50 men of one artillery battery' were willing to train. The Minister replied that officers and N.C.O.'s to a certain strength might go into camp. Other members might train, but could not go into camp unless they paid their own expenses. Provision wag

Mr. Holland: Cannot you take that PO Se ? Mimster: We cannot go further at H P e re that before the House rose he would make a lte . eta ** ment respecting the policy of the Defence Department. Members constantly reverted to the subject of future defence policy, and eventually the Minister made a further statement, disclosing that the.matter would ho the subject of legislation before the session ends. It had been suggested he said, that the Government wished to leave the country defence ess but he had continually explained it had no such intention, but wished .to combine economy with efficiency, which was the right step to take at present. The member for Clutha had given the House a legal opinion about the Governments powers in regard to volunteers, but any statement he (the Minister) had made on the subject had been after consultation with the Crowu law officers. "Wβ have the right to train a certain number of volunteers, and we are helping the various rifle clubs m a liberal way "he said. "We are doing what the law allows us to do. I will be m a position in a few days to bring before the House a certain measure which will contain our proposals in regard to the future of the defence forces. ,, Mr. Stewart: A bill? We should postpone the estimates. The Minister replied that he saw no reason to postpone the estimates. The legislation might be in the final Finance Bill. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Leader of the Opposition, declared that the Minister's statement did not take them far. What was required was a more general statement of what he intended to do. The question of personnel immediately came into consideration when economy was introduced, and the Minister's explanation could have gone a long way further. Evidently the Minister had his mind made up, and the House had drawn the information from him little by little. He was not satisfied, and moved a reduction in the defence vote as an indication that the House should bo supplied with a state* ment from the acting-Prime Minister as to what defence training it was proposed to provide in the future. The amendment was defeated by 44 votes to 23.