MILITARY TRAINING BILL IS DEBATED BY HOUSE

Grey River Argus, 7 October 1949, Page 5

MILITARY TRAINING BILL IS DEBATED BY HOUSE

P.A. WELLINGTON, October 6. In the House of Representatives today, the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser moved the committal of the Military Training Bill. He said that its main principles had already received the overwhelming endorsement of the people, and there was no need for him to restate those principles. Mr Fraser said that the Statutes Revision Committee, in considering the Bill, had, apparently, given most consideration to the sections dealing with conscientious objectors, and had introduced some amendments to those sections. He thanked the committee for the attention it had given the Bill, which vitally affected younger members of the community, and required careful examination.

Discussing the provisions relating to wet canteens, Mr Fraser said that one problem was that, in the larger military camps, there might be wet canteens for the permanent staff, and it was a question of the best method of denying access to those canteens to youths in camp for their training period. He agreed with Mr F. Langstone that some trainees, on returning to camp for refresher courses, might have reached the age of 21. Were they to be permitted to enter the wet canteens while their slightlyyounger associates were excluded from entry? He thought that the best solution might be to declare the wet canteens in camps out of bounds to all of the trainees under the compulsory scheme. That would not interfere with the civil rights of the 21-year-olds, who would be entitled to enter hotels outside of the camps. Mr Fraser said that provision would be made to enable University students to do their training during the recess. That would minimise interference with their studies, but it would also reduce the students’ holiday earnings for their subsequent studies. Many students, normally, spent their holidays working, which contributed to their finances, as well as to their all-round education. No legislative provision could be. made for such cases, but they would certainly be considered, and, as far as he was concerned, provision would be made for them.

Mr T. L. Macdonald (Nat., Wallace) said that one of the most important questions in the Bill was that dealing with liquor in camps. In World War II the wet canteens fulfilled a very useful purpose, but there was now the problem of 18-year-olds. He agreed that strict control of the canteens would be necessary. The Bill indicated very plainly how far some members of the .Labour Party had travelled since the days when they were on the Opposition Benches. The impression had been gained during the referendum campaign that a quick decision was a matter of dire urgency, and that a favourable vote was imperative.

Mr F. Langstone (Ind. Labour, Roskill): It was a scare campaign. That is all it was. Mr Macdonald said that it was rather an anti-climax that the necessary legislation should not have been introduced until near the end of the session, and that the first camp would not be held until next year. Apparently the period of emergency had passed. People were beginning to ask in greater numbers whether it was necessary to hold the referendum. He asserted that the Prime Minister knew that, if the matter was left until the elections, it would shake the foundations of the Labour Party to include compulsory military training in an election platform. The, Prime Minister was left with the only possible course, to take the referendum as far away as h e could from the date of the elections. Alongside items on the estimates totalling 1100,000 for referendum expenses there might well have been printed, “Labour Government self preservation account”. It would not be sufficient just to pass the Bill. It must be seen to that the training scheme itself was the best possible one that could be arranged, and that it was administered successfully. Mr McDonald said military training could do a great amount of good directly for young trainees and idirectly would result .in good for the community be no ground for complaint from any section of the community that trainees were bored with the scheme or that there was waste of manpower would be left. On behalf of the opposition 'he approved the bill and undertook to facilitate its passage. Hon F. Jones said that no Government had faced up to its responsibilities concerning defence as well as the Labour Government had. Right up to the outbreak of the second world war the government had endeavoured to build up the defence forces, and its work had borne fruit. In view of the deteriorating world situation, it had become necessary again to build Up the defence*forces and it seemed not to be generally known that there were eight thousand men in the permanent forces at present on a full time basis. It was appreciated that the territorial force could not be built up except on the lines proposed in the bill, and he considered the Government was fully justified in consulting the people on the question of military training. Mr Jones said the first task was tc train commissioned officers, and ai present nine hundred had been selected to undergo courses, after which a Territorial Force would really come into being in 1951, and those officers would be in charge of the force.

During the fourteen weeks the trainees were in camp the best of them would be selected as temporary N.C.O’s and there would be opportunities for promotion to commissioned rank. He would not like to think that any employer would not assist a young man who was anxious to play his part in the defence of his country The first camp would be held next May. which would absorb most Oi the seasonal workers from other industries. There would be a further camp in January-April 1951. Mr Jones, discussing the Airforce training programme said that Taieri Otago would be re-opened as an airforce station and 750 men would be trained there.

Mr F. Langstone (Roskill) said the system of training which we were using today was as obsolete as would be bow and arrow against a machinegun. No small nation could defend itself unaided against atomic attack. He said there had been widespread concern at the way in which the public exchequer was opened during its recent campaign to support one side of the ease, and he hoped there would be no repetition of that in iu’uro h money were spent on Aer-

ial defence, it would be a. more practical form of preparedness. Mr C. Harker (Nat) said Mr Langstone was consistent in his hostility to compulsory training, but, fortunately most people did not share his willingness to leave New Zealand unprepared for defence. Mi’ Harker said the development of the atom bomb increased, rather than decreased, the need for military preparedness. He believed the provision now made in the amended Bill would assure all genuine conscientious objectors of proper treatment, although he would have preferred to see a separate appeal authority. Hon C. F. Skinner said that, if every democratic country was not prepared to have an adequate defence force, then again war would have to be waged against a totalitarian Power. The best insurance against war was a well balanced defence force in the air, on the land, and on the sea, which would have to be kept abreast of modern trends. Mr D. Rae (Govt.) said that, although the compulsory military training scheme would be costly and irksome to some ,it was not too great a price to pay for our security.

Mrs A. Ross (Nat.) said that during the campaign for carrying of the referendum, she and other members had given assurances that no wet can,teens would be accessible to trainees under the scheme. As the Bill stood, trainees who had reached the age of 21 years would have access to canteens. She said that a pledge should be given that no wet canteens would be available to trainees, irrespective of age. The matter should be fixed beyond all doubt. Mr Fraser, replying to th e debate, said no canteens would be available in that part of any camp occupied by the trainees. If in large camps canteens were established they could be placed out of bounds to trainees. However, he thought the Bill could be improved by making it clear that no trainees, even if 21 years or over, sh'ould have a right to enter canteens. During the committee stages, Mrs Ross renewed her request that the Bill be altered to make it crystal clear that no trainees under the scheme should have access to wet canteens. Mr Jones said there would be a responsibility on the officers in the camps where canteens existed for the regular forces to see that there was no-dbuse. He was sure there would be no difficulty, but if there were, then such camps would be made dry.

Mi- Fraser said there would be definitely no canteens in trainee camps, the limits of which would be clearly defined; Trainees under 21 would have no access to wet canteens in adjacent camp areas, and if the reference to “under 21 years of age” were deleted, the effect would be that no trainees under the scheme, even if they attained the age of 21, would be able to enter wet canteens.

Mr Fraser moved that the Bill be amended to .that effect, and the House agreed. The Bill was passed.