Evening Post. MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1930. BETRAYAL OF A NATIONAL TRUST

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 42, 18 August 1930, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1930. BETRAYAL OF A NATIONAL TRUST

Only two members of the United Party—arid both of them were members of the Government—r6poke in favour of the Defence Amendment Bill during the second reading debate on Friday. It was an "ex officio" obligation of the Minister of Defence to introduce the measure, and .the Minister of Railways came forward to help him. But as the two Ministers contradicted one another, and each of them even contradicted himself, the Government's betrayal of its trust would have been less glaring if Mr. Cobbe and Mr. Veitch had imitated the discretion of their colleagues and given a silent vote. I am beginning to wonder, said the Leader of the Opposition, whether the Minister, of Defence should hold his high office. la he a pacifist? As to the second point, we prefer to say that the Minister of Defence is, j like the Prime Minister himself, an Imperialist compelled to submit to i pacifist dictation, and seeking to disguise with a lip-service to his real faith the odious anti-Imperial conclusion that has been forced upon him. TVs to the fitness of the Minister of Defence for his high office, regarding which it does credit to the moderation of Mr. Coates that he is only "beginning to wonder," we may allow the Minister to answer for him-1 self:—

I maintain that no sensible man under existing conditions can justify an annual expenditure- of upwards of £1,----000,000 on what we term "defence," but is really a system for the, training of a force to bo ready for active service oversea at short notice.

The Minister of Defence may be congratulated upon his appreciation, of the fact that what had previously been regarded as an essential part of New Zealand's defence was "the training of a force to be ready for active service oversea at short notice." For the twenty years during which that system has been in operation this has been the opinion of all his predecessors, and long before that the point had been fully grasped by Mr. Seddon. The Dominion is not a strong and self-sufficient Power which can wait until an invader comes within the three-mile limit, and then deal with him on its own account Insignificant in itself, this country depends primarily upon the British Navy for its security, and the services which, under the protection of that Navy, our Expeditionary Forces rendered successively in Western Samoa, on the Suez Canal, in Gallipoli/in Palestine, and in France showed that the defence of New Zealand is but an incident in j the defence of the Empire, and that our real frontier may be hundreds or even Aousands of miles away. In the years 1914-1918 the dullest of us were strategists enough to realise ihis truth, but since then twelve years of "peace have blinded many of us, including the Minister of Defence. He, is satisfied that "no sensible man under existing conditions", —that is to say, tinder the "conditions of peace—can justify the present expenditure on

what we term "defence," but is really a system for the training of a force to be ready for active service oversea at short notice.

What can this distinction mean except that what we have been terming defence is not really defence at all, because it includes provision for sending our forces to the only places where they can be of any use? "Is he a pacifist?".asked the bewildered Mr. Coates, but Mr. Cobbe made no reply. This Minister of What He Terms Defence has certainly so altered the meaning of the term as to gladden the hearts of the pacifists and the parochialists, without whose votes the Government could not carry on:

Yet though the purpose of the Minister's Bill and the substance of his speech were of this deplorably antiImperial character, there was a patriotic touch here and there to modify its pacifism.

The -wort of the officers and n.c.o.'s of the Department had boon so well done that the country had many thousands of men who had completed their Territorial training, arid had been trausforrod to the reserve. Bo successfully had the work been carried out that NewZealand was in a position of1 boing able to case up in military training, and in that way effect a large saving at a time when economy in all directions was a pressing necessity.

This unqualified testimony to the efficiency of the present system goes a good deal further than most of the advocates of the system have cared to go, and presents a striking contrast to the wholesale denunciations in which both its Socialist and its clerical assailants have persistently indulged. But we are certainly not concerned to dispute the general accuracy of the Minister's statement. Recognising it to be substantially correct, we may point out that on the Minister's own showing we shall be living on our military capital, so,to speak, during the year for which compulsory training will be suspended; and that the loss in efficiency will not be limited to this one year, since a great piece of machinery which has been put out

of gear and laid aside for so long a time cannot be suddenly put into running order again as though nothing had happened—even if the Government so desired. But do the Government so desire? That question . touches the shabbiest and most intolerable part of the whole business. The Government are not committed either to set the system going after the period of suspense or to substitute any other system either now or later. In Committee the Minister stated that the Bill would operate for one year only. What the future would hold he could not say. The Government had boen urged in many quarters to abolish training altogether, but the Government would not do that. The horses required would be retained, and those not wanted would be sold. It is something to know that there may be a few horses left at the end of the year to play their part in the defence of the Empire, but that does not carry us very far. On the main point, "what the future would hold" was more than the Minister of Defence could say. It may be that the Labour Party, with whom he says that he has had no conversation in regard to the Bill, could enlighten him if- he gave them a chance. -The Minister of Railways (Mr. Veitch), who proved himself on the whole a most inconvenient ally, was in some respects more communicative. He said that there was to be "no falling off in New Zealand's contribution to the defence of the Empire," though £300,000 is to be cut off an already disproportionately small Defence vote of £1,000,000. It was also stated by the Minister of Railways that

the Bill did not relievo any New Zealander of bis1 responsibility to fit himself for his duty In connection with the defence of his country or the Empire

—a very remarkable statement in face of the fact that the Bill relieves our young men of every existing obligation to qualify for the defence of the Empire and substitutes no other. To these negative assertions Mr. Veitch added a positive one at least equally surprising.

The object of the present Bill was, he said, to test out the Volunteer system. .. If it was found that the Volunteer system was not satisfactory, they could easily return to the old system.

Yet there is nothing in the Bill or in the speech of the Minister of Defence to suggest that a Volunteer system is to be tried, and if it were tried how could it conceivably be "tested out" in twelve months? Even worse than this gross betrayal of a great national trust is the series of subterfuges and equivocations by which it is being brought about.