PLAN FOR DEFENCE ADVISERS REJECTED

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30591, 6 November 1964, Page 3

PLAN FOR DEFENCE ADVISERS REJECTED

(From Out Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, November 5. An attempt by Opposition members to have an advisory committee of departmental heads appointed to work with the Defence Council was defeated in Parliament today during the >assage of the Defence Bill through its committee stages. An amendment by Mr W. E. Rowling (Opp., Buller), that he committee should be appointed, and that it should comprise he secretaries of the Treasury and of External Affairs, and the Assistant-Secretary (Overseas Trade) of the Department of tndustries and Commerce, was defeated, 38-31.

The Defence Council comprises the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the chiefs of staff of the armed sendees.

•* The Minister of Defence JMr Eyre) said the amendment was redundant. Mr Bowling merely wanted to set Jip a committee which was already provided for in the bill. The officials named, and (fathers, might be co-opted from time to time under the bill as it stood. • “We had hoped the Minister Would adopt the amendment,” Said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer). “It fould not do any harm.” Mr Rowling’s argument was that a committee such as he proposed would provide closer Integration within the realm ®f New Zealand’s defence and jpverseas obligations. The views of these officials jvould be necessary in the coordination and formulation of t-ecommendations by the council, he said. Matter Of Expense ; Mr D. Maclntyre (Govt., Hastings), said he felt the ■council was full enough as it

was, especially as departmental officers could be coopted when they were needed. Discussion would often be purely domestic, however, and there would be no point in these officials attending the meetings.

Mr D. S. Thomson (Govt., Stratford), said the Government was trying to avoid proliferation of staff in setting up the ministry. The Opposition’s proposal would also make the cost of running the council more expensive. Mr Eyre said that as there had never been a single defence department before, there was no machinery to coordinate the budget requirements. “One has to feel one's way,” he said. If such a committee were set up, and was completely separate, it must be out of touch to some extent. If it were found necessary, however, such a committee could be set up by the council itself.

Regret at the difficulties experienced with the rules of the House by the Opposition when it attempted to debate defence policy was expressed by Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill). Because of the rules, the Opposition had been unable to state its policy. “Well over a year ago, what this bill sets out to do was agreed on by the Opposition. It was a cornerstone of our election policy,” he said.

Mr Faulkner said it was not the intention of the Opposition to attempt to discuss that issue at this stage, but it had several questions about the bill.

He asked why the Government moved away from the recommendations of the Royal Commission of State Services and established a unitary system for its Defence Ministry instead of creating a fourth department. He said he was inclined to agree with this approach, but he would be grateful to hear the facts on which the Government made its decision. R.S.A. Queries Some publicity had been given in the Returned Services’ Association “Review” on the advice to be given to the Minister of Defence. The bill provided for the Secretary of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Defence Council to give advice to the Minister. As had been suggested in the “Review,” there should be some clear division. Mr Faulkner said the Opposition would also ask how it should be decided when the Minister’s determination on a question should be sought. Again, some specific division should be made in the bill. He said the Opposition did not accept that the new system of the Defence Ministry would mean a saving of money or staff. This was not, in his view, a reason for the ministry at all. There might be long-term savings, but the emphasis should be on military efficiency. “Living In Past” “With respect to the ‘Review,’ some people are living in the past. They are patriotic and well-meaning, but still living in the past,” said Mr Eyre. The younger generation was well up to date, but returned servicemen who only knew about defence matters when they served in the last war did not know much about modern defence methods. The bill was passed through its committee stages.