INADEQUATE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 30 June 1939, Page 2

INADEQUATE

DEFENCE FORCES | UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADVOCATED j TRAINING IN ARMS [From Our Owu Parliamentary Reporter! WELLINGTON, This Day. Declaring that the defence forces of New Zealand were inadequate, Mr J. Hargcst (National, Awarua! t advocated universal military service in the House of Representatives last night, and said that New Zealand could only be defended against invasion by a sufficient number of men to protect all vulnerable points. It would be impossible to supply such a number with modern arms but 40,000 or 50,000 men trained in the use of machine guns and rifles would be able to make an invading force “consider the position.” During the seven or eight years he had been in the House he had always reserved the right to criticise the administration of the Defence Department, Mr Hargest said, and he was going to discuss the defence position without apology or excuse. The attitude of the Government towards those who had criticised the defence policy had been to accuse them of being :n league with the Opposition, but many people in New Zealand were concerned about defence and that was why the Defence League was so strongly supported. The Defence League had as its I objects universal service and the awakening of public interest but the Minister of Defence and his colleagues talked of suppressing it. The Minister of Defence (the Hon. F. Jones); That is not true. The Minister was called to order by the Speaker and withdrew his interjection, but said Mr Hargest’s statement was incorrect. A statement to that effect had been published, Mr Hargest said. The Opposition stood for universal military training for home defence. If New Zealanders were to have the privileges of democracy it was their bounden duty to defend those privileges. They should not pass that defence on to the willing few as the Government was doing. The Government had never shown any scruples about compulsion in other matters. They had introduced compulsory membership of trade unions, the compulsory commandeer of dairy produce, and compulsory social secuiity, and if it was right to use compulsion in those cases why was it wrong in defence?

The Minister of Education (the Hon. P. Fraser): Was it right? Mr Hargest said that the Opposition did not believe in compulsion, but they believed it was the duty of everyone to be prepared to defend the country.

The Opposition would support the Prime Minister in his appeal for men, but sufficient men would not be secured. The world was facing a grave situation and many more men were needed for the adequate defence of New Zealand. Any attacking force would have the mobility of the sea and could feint at one place and land somewhere else a few hours later. The present defence force would be defeated in strategy through lack of numbers but 40,000 or 50,000 men equipped with rifles could guard the country. The cost of equipping a division of 15,000 men with modern arms was £ll,000,000 and N:w Zealand could not afford that, but 40,000 men could oe trained in and equipped with rifles and the Turks at Gallipoli had proved that determined men with rifles and machine guns could withstand an army backed by the British Navy.

In conclusion Mr Hargest criticised the Government for disbanding former battalions and for not equipping the present force with modern arms. New Zealand had eighteen Bren guns and not a single tank gun. The Minister t.f Public Works was building roads for troops to travel over but an enemy force with "•'odern arms would use those roads and they would have to be destroyed to check the invader’s activity. The Government was asking the returned soldiers to offer their services but it was the duty of the young men to defend the country, and the men who had already served and were now too old for active service should not be asked to do the work.