DEFENCE BILL

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 284, 27 August 1930, Page 9

DEFENCE BILL

The Council’s Attitude WHY BILL WAS REJECTED Mr. Triggs Explains To the Editor, Sir, —An article in to day’s “Dominion” headed “Defence Economy” is so incorrect and misleading as to the action of the Legislative Council in rejecting the Defence Bill that it cannot be allowed to pass unanswered. It is absolutely incorrect to say that the Council defeated the Bill “on the ground that it was unwise to. curtail defence services.” The Council, as a body, is strongly convinced of the need of retrenchment in public expenditure, and agrees that the defence services must share in the cutting-down process. The Leader of the Council admitted, as the Minister of Defence had done previously, that the original Defence Act gives ample power to the Government to carry out their proposals without any fresh legislation. As a matter of fact, the Reform Government in 1922 carried out even more extensive retrenchment in defence services without any interference with the Act. Why then did the Government introduce the “Defence (Temporary) Amendment Bill”? The reason why the Council threw it out by a large majority was, as several speakers plainly stated, because they considered it was a furtive but none the less determined attempt to destroy the system of national service on which the Defence Act is founded. The Government’s Bill not only suspends the system of compulsory military training for one year, but (clause 2) provides for the reintroduction of the voluntary system. The attempt thus to mix ' two incompatibles would to a large extent have nullified the attempts to retrench, and the ultimate result would have been chaos and abject inefficiency. The law making every able-bodied man responsible for taking his share in the defence of his country was carried by Sir Joseph Ward, and one can hardly conceive a Liberal Government would wish to destroy one of the greatest and most patriotic achievements of their distinguished leader so soon after his decease. Unfortunately, in the present deplorable condition of our politics, they are not free agents. They are under the thumb of the Labour Party who bitterly opposed the introduction of the system of national defence and openly declared their intention of destroying it at the first opportunity. They appear to have accepted the amendment Bill as a compromise which will enable them to attain their object, albeit in a less direct way. Had Parliament given its formal sanction to the suspension of compulsory service and the surreptitious reintroduction of the volunteer system it would have greatly facilitated the giving of the “coup-de-grace” to the principle of national service at a later date." The Legislative Council has said that if such a momentous change in our policy of defence is to be made, it shall not be done by a sidewind in a Bill, introduced by a" minority Government, who attempted to rush it through in the whirlwind of legislation preceding the Prime Minister’s departure. The people should have the opportunity of considering it fully, and nothing short of a popular mandate after a general election can justify such a momentous change.

So strongly did the Legislative Council feel on this subject that they defeated the Bill by a majority of nearly two to one. despite a significant reminder from the actmg-Leader that the Government by the simple process of issuing an Order-in-Council could abolish the existing Council and bring into force the suspended Act, which provides for an elected Council. The propriety of making such a menacing suggestion may be questioned, but the futility of any such attempt to put pressure on the Council was conclusively demonstrated. The volunteer system was tried in New Zealand for about. 30 years prior to the passing of- the - Defence Act in 1909, and proved a complete failure. The Defence Act has been in operation for 21 years and / proved its value, when not only New Zealand but the Empire was in direct peril. When the Great War broke out, the Act had been in operation for three years. It had been estimated that seven years would be necessary for its complete development, so that the scheme, had not reached the point of maximum effectiveness. Some 26,000 territorials, and a similar number of cadets, had reached various degrees of efficiency. The organisation and administrative arrangements had reach ed a higher degree of efficiency than the training, and it was this, as is pointed oui in the official history;of “New Zealand’.War Effort.” which made possible tin rapid mobilisation, equipment and dis patch on a war footing of effective ex peditionary forces.” The Samoan Ex peditionary force of 55 officers and 135 s other ranks, well-equipped and drawn almost entirely from the territorial force, left Wellington 11 days after the out break of wan; and the Main Body, of 360 -officers and 8139 other ranks sailed on October 15, a little more than , two months after the declaration of war. The prompt dispatch of. these forces .would have been impossible without the prewar organisation which was the product of the Defence Act. But this was not its crowning achievement, which is best described in the words of Colonel Sleeman: “On the signing of the Armistice New Zealand held the proud distinction of having we strongest division on the Western Front, in consequence of the steady and sum cient supply of reinforcements—a_ magnificent achievement, and one . which amazed the Powers best in a position to judge its difficulties.” . 3 Surely a system which has given these results, which have gained for New Zea land the admiration of the world should not be undermined and ultimately .destroyed. without the people having been g ven the fullest opportunity to expresLegislative Council, August 25.

Another View Sir—The Defence Amendment Bill was introduced and passed through the House of Representatives as a measure cojisid ered necessary for the well-being of the community! This Bill merit d and won democratic support not alone upon econ omic considerations but because brought this Dominion more into tone with the spirit prevailing in other Dornin ions and’ nations. The militarist opposition was the usual futile argumentative nonsense which emanates from such quarters Those . who opposed wer< clearly considering Imperial interests a. the cost of the welfare of this Domin It was intimated that the Bill woul meet opposition in the Legislative Coin; cil But few imagined that the member of that Chamber would go further tha. advising amendments. The action the; have taken must be considered as f grave breach of those democratic restrie tion. which the members of the Uppe. Chamber should recognise! It constitute.a challenge to the authority of the Hous, of Representatives! The action which th. Prim • Minister takes must decide the at titude of both Houses. It is no secret that the democratic party desires the abolition of the Upper Chamber. It is very certain that a counter measure directed toward that end would meet the support of the Lower House and would be applauded by the democratic sections of the community.—l am, etc., ALPHA. Wellington. August 26.