Powder Damp For Defence Debate

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30560, 1 October 1964, Page 3

Powder Damp For Defence Debate

(Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, September 30. The second reading debate on the Defence Bill, which sets up the Ministry of Defence and endeavours to coordinate New Zealand’s Army, Navy and Air Force thinking, proved tonight to be the most disappointing debate of the session. When the Defence estimate was dealt with, quite briefly, in the small hours of the morning a fortnight ago, it was suggested the Opposition was saving its main ammunition for this debate. Listeners to tonight’s debate are still wondering what happened to this ammunition. The Opposition speakers, Messrs A. J. Faulkner (Roskill) and W. E. Rowling (Buller) raised nothing contentious. The Government’s speakers, Messrs Thomson (Stratford) and Harrison (Hawke’s Bay), both of considerable military experience, contented themselves with uninspired repetition. And the position did not improve. The Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie) began objecting quite early in the debate to irrelevancles and Mr Rowling abandoned his speech after several warnings. Later, when Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp, Waitakere) was speaking, the Speaker said: “The rule is clear. There is a bill before the House. Unless this bill is discussed. 1 shall have no option but to invoke rule 207. [Rule 207 says: “Mr Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, after having called the attention of the

House or of the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.”] Labour View Mr Faulkner said the Opposition believed there was a widespread desire for reform in defence. It believed the nation needed a sense of direction in defence. It would expect from the Ministry a complete understanding of External Affairs’ objectives and a close liaison with the Treasury so that its equipment programme was such that continuity of supply was ensured. “We support the establishment of the ministry and want to explode the myth that we will leave the country defenceless if we become the Government.” He said there should be a more flexible defence system and closer liaison with the Australians. A Labour Government would concentrate on quality rather than quantity in its armed forces. “We would plan defence with highlytrained and fully-equipped services." Mr Thomson said the ministry of defence would defend New Zealand’s security by determining the values of the past, defining New Zealand’s commitments and obligations, and evaluating our resources.

Mr Rowling said it was important for New Zealand to have an integrated defence programme. The system to be worked out should comprise a unified defence policy. Government voice: That takes in the West Coast Mr Harrison said there had been many examples over the year of inter-service rivalry and the setting up of the

Ministry of Defence would co-ordinate battle and administrative efficiency and the use of the country’s economic resources. The Speaker interrupted Dr. Finlay and asked him to confine himself to the bill, which was one dealing with a unified ministry of defence and a unified policy. Dr. Finlay replied that this was precisely what he had said. The Speaker said he would be the judge of what he had stated in defining the limits within which the debate should be confined.

Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton) then quoted a clause from the bill which he con tended permitted a much wider discussion than the Speaker was permitting. The Speaker thanked Mr Kirk for clarifying in a most lucid manner “what is already clear to me.” Dr. Finlay, after some further comment by the Speaker, said: “I'm much obliged to your Honour.” Opposition voice: Six months. Final Warning Later, the Speaker again interposed that Dr. Finlay should confine himself to the bill. That would be his final warning. Dr. Finlay replied that if the-Speaker continued to rule him out of order then all he could do was to sit down, but after snme further exchanges. Dr. Finlay continued his speech. He said he would like to see added to the Defence Council someone concerned with the political aspects. The

council—the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chiefs of Staff—could not, in isolation, make decisions relating either to a given set of circumstances or more often changing ones because these impinged on other considerations. Dr. Finlay covered the Opposition attitude to compulsory military training, and said that did not, in the slightest degree, mean the Labour Party .was opposed to defence. He said he did not care what the cost of defence was as long as New Zealand was properly defended. He would not care if the spending were increased. “We don't quibble at defence expenditure, but we want it spent to proper purpose.” “Better Bang” Dr. Finlay, in ending his speech, said: “I want a final assurance from the Minister of Defence as to whether or not we are to have six fri sates." The Minister of Defence (Mr Eyre): There’s nothing about frigates in the bill. The Sneaker: That’s a fourpoint win for the speaker. Dr. Finlay concluded by saying the Opposition sunported the purpose of the bill. Mr Eyre said Dr. Finlay showed a pitiful lack of military knowledge. “He put forward an awful lot of platitudes and I found him very hard to follow. His was a very soft and dangerous line of thinking, throwing doubt on our system of training.” Mr Eyre said the nation’s troops were “pretty well” trained in guerrilla warfare and had been trained in this for years. He believed that if the country had to fight it would, under the Ministry of Defence, get a “bigger bang” for the money spent on defence. The bill was read a second time.