NATIONAL INSURANCE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 10, 11 July 1930, Page 14

NATIONAL INSURANCE

! <To the Editor.) riii% —Jleading'tho report of the combined deputation from the sundry peaceful bodies wjiio desire to cancel our national insurance policy—reasonable measures of defence —one wonders really if these shortsighted, well-intentioned persons have behind them the whole of the bodies they represent, and, furthermore, what exactly some of those bodies are and to what they are allied.* There are at least three of these bodies whose policy has ever been in the dirction of the abolition of all means of defence —^namely, the Society of ~riends and tbe Trades and Labour Council and the New Zealand Labour Party, so that their opinions at the present juncture cannot be said to have much weight. Of these the Society of Friends has the respect of a great many, but it must be remembered that during the late war a great number of members of that body, as citizens who loved their country, i'clt it essential to discard their attitude of neutrality. • Some actually served in the Forces, and many others banded themselves together and did excellent voluntary, -work iu driving ambulances to succour the wounded. If there come another such war, they will undoubtedly feel a similar urge. The forces of "labour" so styled voice their opinions through the more extreme elements which claim to represent them. But these extreme elements do not represent the working man in this country, and they certainly do not carry with them the national spirit of those working men who have served as soldiers during war and as territorials or volunteers during peace. Anyone who has had a first-hand knowledge can tell that, insofar as national spirit and a wish to defend all that makes this country and the Empire worth fighting for are concerned, a comparison between those which the extreme labour element claims to represent and those whom they would not claim would indicate that at..the bottom of their heart all are right behind a reasonable measure of defence. ■■ In those memorable years of struggle, 1914-1918, there were probably a greater proportion of men whom the so-called representatives of "labour" would consider to be their constituents, and those men know by experience that efficiency is only obtainable by-training and that training can only be brought about by good organisation; they are fully , aware also that good organisation cannot be built up in a few days on emergency, and that staff work is necessary beforehand for that as well as for the systematic supply and issue of equipment. There are some eighty thousand men in this country who had more or less expei'ience of army life, and they know that the ill-trainod officer, the badly-organised battalion, and the want of equipment are responsible for the worst discomforts of army life. They know that these difficulties cannot be overcome by pressing a button. Nor are they the men likely to be lulled to sleep by specious promises of peaceful intent by nations which are themselves increasing armaments. These men are not among the number which would tear up their insurance policy, on the understanding that the man next door, who is piling rubbish on his smouldering rubbish heap, does not intend to set a match to it.— T am, etc., ANTI-HUMBUG.