DEFENCE OF COUNTRY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 260, 3 August 1928, Page 12

DEFENCE OF COUNTRY

THE DUTY OF ALL PRESENT SYSTEM DEFENDED ANOTHER LABOUR DEFEAT Another Labour defeat was recorded in tbe House of Reptesentatives last night when the second reading of Mr. J. A. Lee's Compulsory Military Service Repeal Bill was rejected by an overwhelming majority. An interesting contribution to tho debate was made by the Minister of Defence. Moving the second reading of tbe Bill, Mr. Lee said that the Labour Party in its advocacy of the repeal of compulsory military training had a case which their opponents found difficult to answer. There was no doubt that even in the most influential Reform circles there was a growing doubt that the results had not justified the expenditure. The Defence Department, he continued, had been found wanting and was now “on the run.” A voluntary system would achieve greater efficiency at less cost to the country. One of the greatest barriers to the development of sport m New Zealand was the present “futile and stupid” military service system, which, in his opinion, was un-British, Prussian, and foreign to British temperament. “Entirely Destructive Criticism.” The Minister of Defence (Hon. F. J. Rolleston) said he failed to discover any constructive criticism in Mr. Lee's speech; it was entirely destructive. lie had given no indication of the policy the Labour Party would pursue if the present system were abolished. He (the Minister) was at a loss to understand whether Mr. Lee was attacking the Home system of defence. or the compulsory system at present in operation in New Zealand. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) : Have we got any system of defence in view of modern developments? The Minister: Oh. yes. . I am quite prepared to argue that point. If Mr. Lee is in favour of a voluntary system it is an admission that some, form of defence is necessary, but listening to his speech one would imagine that he was up against any form of defence. If it is wrong to take up arms as a volunteer, it is equally wrong to take up arms as a territorial. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Lee: If it is wrong to spend £2, does that mean to say it is wrong to spent £1? Volunteer System Found Wanting. The Minister said he was afraid that he could not enter into an argument with Mr. Lee oil that point, and went on to say that New Zealand had taken a part in the reduction of armaments, and had agreed to submit to any possible reduction that could be made consistent with national safety. A voluntary system of defence was tried in New Zealand some years ago, and was found wanting. Mr. Lee: It was not found wanting in Great Britain. . “In Great Britain,” replied the Minister, “thev have a standing army, which makes all the difference.” The reason the volunteer system was found wanting in New Zealand was that there was no control over the men, with the result that there was a hopeless lack of anything like discipline. Further, the system was unfair because the defence of the country was left to a few public spirited citizens.

It was the duty of .everybody, irrespective of rank, or calling, to take a share in the defence of the country.

The Minister said he thought Mr. Lee was optimistic when he said he was gaining a number of converts to ills way of thinking.' Nothing was perfect, but to sit down and devise a substitute for the present military training system would be a difficult matter. Wages While in Camp. Mr. G. XV. Forbes (Hurunui) said that the feeling of the average man ih regard to expenditure on defence centred chiefly round the question whether value was received for the money expended. While the 'world was as it was. there would have to be expenditure on defence. Regarding the payment by employers of men while iii camp, Air. h orbes suggested that the cost should be borne by the Consolidated Fund, and not by any particular section of the community. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) argued that the present training system inflicted unnecessary hardship on the young men of the country, hew Zealand was still “military mad ten years after the Great XX’ar had been ended. The training of the war period had shown that the territorial system did not produce efficient soldiers.. Compulsory training was not required in order to provide officers, since the officers and non-commissioned officers were all volunteers. . , . , Air. V. 11. Potter (Roslull) maintained that training camps had a beneficial, and not a detrimental, effect upon the young men, who, if left alone, would work will’. Fraser (Wellington Central) said that to compel the youth of New Zealand to become part and parcel of a machine that was admittedly obsolete threw discredit upon the country. He' saw no reason for the retention of the compulsory clauses in the Act, and thought that the New Zealand Government might take a more prominent part in the movement for the promotion of world peace. The Minister of Justice: XVould the passing of this Bill further that idea? “Personally,” said Mr. Fraser, “I think it would, but I also think that the main thing to do is to remove an unnecessary injustice that is at present being iuflict-

ed. The old adage, 'Prepare for war if you want peace.’ has been exploded long ago,” said Mr. Fraser. . The Prime Minister:.Do you think we should drop home defence altogether? “I don't think I would be prepared to do that,” replied Mr. Fraser, “but I say that in tbe face of modern developments it would be impossible to defend our country. If that is so, the sooner disarmament takes place the better.’’ “But no ory finds fault with that, suggested tbe Prime Minister. Mr. Fraser: “No.” War was a horrible butchery, he added. Mr. G. R. Sykes (Masterton) said he had attended many training camps and had found that the boys were quite contented and happy, which would not, however, be the ease if lie were to endeavour to inspire tbe boys with tbe thought that these duties were irksome and unnecessary. If the Labour Party were sincere in their protestations they should not accept the protection of New Zealand's shores and commerce bv the British Navy. New Zealand had rightly resolved that this should be a white man’s country, a policy to which he thought the Labour Party would subscribe. Mr. XV. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) : Not the extreme Labour Party. (Laughter.) Shooting Interjections. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said the speech of Mr. Sykes was entirely at variance with the spirit of peace; in fact, it might have been delivered ill the darkages. (Laughter.) Mr. J. S. Dickson (Parnell) : Before the guns in Cathedral Square were shifted, (Renewed laughter.) Mr. Sullivan: The hon. member for Parnell might be able to render some service to his constituency if he got up and tried to deliver a speech like Mr. Sykes’s instead of shooting futile interjections from his bench. ... , Mr. Dickson: I hit a target that time I (Laughter.) Mr Sullivan: As far as the guns are concerned I want to say to the hon. member that what we are interested in is not dead guns but live guns. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): Don’t incite him. (Laughter.) Mr. Sullivan: We want intellectual guns and not pom-poms. Need for Preparation. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) said the Labour Party did not want defence, which enables the people to live in safety and comfort. Only some ot the trainees objected to drill; most of them did not. The Labour Party believed only in the voluntary system. The former Labour member for Dunedin North was unpopular because he helncd in getting men to go to the war. When war came we were not prepared. We should be prepared if the call came again. The majority of the people were in favour of defence, and there would be a hue and cry from one end of New Zealand to the other if Parliament wiped out the defence system. He strongly resented the references to “the tin hat brigade.” which could only refer to the heads of the Defence Forces. The people should be proud of the heads of the Defence Department, and he believed they were. Mr. J. A. Lee: Ao one said anything against them. Mr. Nash: “Continued reference has been made to the ‘tin hat brigade.’ That can only refer to the officers and head of the Department.” He (Mr. A ash) believed that the Labour criticism was simply meant as an election cry. Mr. F. Waite (Chitlin) snoke of the necessity of defence. He said that every new weapon that was introduced was said to be unfair. Much was said about gas. but one might just as well be knocked out by gas as' bv a battle axe, vet in Spartan days when the battleaxe was introduced a warrior was heard to remark: “What now would become of the valour of man?” Of the American ensunlties in the Great XX’nr. one in four died from wounds and only one in fifty was the result of being gassed. XX e must be prepared to defend New Zealand, and for that purpose we should need an expeditionarv force to go where it ti.is wnn ‘cd—to the north-west frontier of India, the Suez Cnnal, or once again to the Western Front. Responsibility for the War. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E'. Holland) said it went without saying that the people of any country would rise to tbe occasion when that country was being attacked. Compulsion was of Continental sentiment, and repugnant to the British people. Germany had prepared for .war— — The Minister of Education (Hon. R. A. Wright) : She made the war. The Leader of the Opposition said that anyone who had studied history knew that while Germany carried a heavy share of tbe responsibility for the war, the other nations involved had a share in the responsibility, particularly Russia and France. The ■ British diplomats who spoke untruths as to the commitments made, also carried their share of the responsibility. Increases in Pay. Mr. Holland said that Australia had three times as many casualties as New Zealand sent men to the war. The Prime Minister (Right Hon. J. G. Coates): Will you tell the whole story? That is only a red herring! The Leader of the Opposition said the figures showed the numbers of men Australia wr.s able to send to the war without conscription. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) : How many did Australia lose? Mr. Holland: “I cannot remember the exact number, but the total casualties were in the vicinity of 300,000. It makes no reflection on New Zealand.” Mr. Holland claimed that an increase in the pay of the Now Zealand soldiers had been tbe result of the fight put up by a handful of Labour members and others in the House.

Mr. Nash : That’s nonsense. Mr. Holland: The hon. member would sav anything was nonsense. Mr. Nash: That’s nonsense, too. Mr. Holland: Perhaps the hon. member stood ’for the increase? Mr. Nash: I stood for what the country would stand. The Prime Minister: XVere the men fighting for money? Mr. Holland: “Certainly not, but the war -rofiteers were.” He claimed there could not be war and Christianity at the siwe time. Air. D. Jones (Ellesmere) pointed to the

fallacy of Mr. Holland’s remarks concerning Christianity, for New Zealand might be attacked by a uo n-Christian people. It was no good saying that in the event of an invasion New Zealanders would' rise as one man. They might as well be just one man for all the good they would be if they were untrained. The Labour Party asked the people to endorse their suggestion to do away with compulsory training, but it would not receive the endorsement unless some alternative scheme was brought forward. Mr. Jones said the.e was some inconvenience during harvest time when tbe men were called into camp, but this could be obviated if the military officers and the farmers got together. Bill Rejected. After Mr. Lee had replied, a division taken, resulting in the defeat of the second reading of tho Bill by 50 votes Io 10, the Labour Party alone voting for the measure. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS A VOTE NOT RECORDED The House of Representatives yesterday agreed to the addition of the vote of Mr. G. R. Sykes (Masterton) to the "Aye” list in the division on the second reading of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill. By way of personal explanation, Mr. Sykes said that when the division was called he went into the “Aye” lobby, but unfortunately he omitted to see that his name was recorded in the division list. He uow desired that his name be so recorded as having voted “Aye.” The division list was adjusted accordingly. TO COME AGAIN “We certainly never expected the Bill to go through, and we came out very much better than we expected, considering the number of members who were about,” said Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North), when interviewed yesterday regarding the defeat of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill. Mr. Holland added that last year the Bill was defeated by 36 votes to 31, but on Wednesday night the real position was better than the vote recorded, inasmuch as 29 members really voted for the Bill and 31 against it. the vote of Mr. Sykes not having been recorded. He' was totally at a loss to account for Mr. Glenn. 'Something important must have happened to take him away in a hurry. Had he been present the voting would have been 30 for the Bill and 31 against, because he had always supported it in the past. Of course, it was a very small House out of SO members. Mr. Holland said there was no doubt the BUI would come up again and again, until it reached the Statute Book.

A NEW PROPOSAL BILL BEFORE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Following the defeat of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill in the House of Representatives, a Bili was introduced in the Legislative Council yesterday by the Hon. G. M. Thomson, which proposes to amend the Education Act, 1914, to provide for a system of nonsectarian religious instruction in the schools. The Bill provides for an important amendment of section 56 of the principal Act, governing the management of schools, by inserting tbe words “In the sense of non-sectarian” after the word “secular” in sub-section -1, which will then read: “The school shall be kept open live days in each week for at least four hours each day, two of which in the forenoon and two in the afternoon shall be consecutive, and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular, in the sense of nonscctnrian, character.” The Bill also proposes the insertion after the above sub-section of the following sub-sections: — “With the view of affording facilities for giving religious instruction by. qualified persons approved by the Minister, half an hour on one or two school days in each week may be set apart in the morning or afternoon as the case may be. “During the time so set apart in any school no secular instruction shall be given to children not attending classes for religious instruction. “No child shall be required to attend for religious instruction unless his. parent or guardian has signified in writing his willingness to allow his child to receive such instruction. “No State school teacher shall lie required to give religious instruction during the time set apart for this, but he will see that order and discinline are preserved in the class rooms and school grounds.” The Bill was rend a first time, and set down for second reading on Wednesday, August S. The New Plymouth Borough Council Empowering Bill, introduced by Mr. C. E. Bellringer, was read a first time in the House of Representatives yesterday and referred to the Local Bills Committee.