THE DEFENCE SYSTEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20525, 28 March 1930, Page 12

THE DEFENCE SYSTEM.

A preliminary intimation has been given by. .the Prime. Minister that Parliament will be asked *to review the Dominion's system of land defence, " especially having regard to the necessity of reducing the annual expenditure on this branch ! of defence "—a qualification that, incidentally, contains a contentious proposition. The text of the statement is important. "The Government is at present engaged in careful consideration " of the subject and it is its intention to submit proposals. Read literally, as such a formal announcement should be, these phrases clearly imply that the Government is still at the stage of exploration and has not yet finalised its proposals. Yet before it has decided the method, the character or the dimensions of the defence system which it contemplates recommending to Parliament, the Government has decided to cancel all training camps. The actual effect is that of the current year's programme, eight camps are to be stopped, including one which would have started to-morrow. It is difficult to imagine the motive for this impulsive proceeding, this legislation by order of the Government that is utterly inconsistent with the prefatory acknowledgment that revision of the defence system is a function of Parliament. The Government itself does not offer any explanation, nor does it express any recognition of the fact that t,-his peremptory cancellation of camps curtails the training of the units concerned, for which no other provision is proposed, and introduces an element of confusion into the system which, by reason of the rigid restriction of the financial provision, has been forced to bring efficiency and economy closer together than in a,ny other department of State activity. The Government's action, indeed, appears to be merely one of those "theatrical, foolish gestures" which Mr. Shinwell, Financial Secretary to the War Office in Britain's Labour Government, recently condemned as foreign to practical poll tics. There is no doubt that by this gesture the Government will gain a momentary respite from the Labour Party's criticism on this point, even if it docs not evoke applause from that quarter, for the New Zealand Labour Party has more sympathy with the doctrinaire back-benchers of the British Labour Party than with those on the Treasury benches who are striving to achieve disarmament by international agreement. The Government may protest that its decision was made without thought of its reception by the Labour Party; it certainly appears to have been made without thought of its reception by those who do not agree with the Labour Party's views on this subject. Remembering the Labour Party's hostility toward any provision for military defence and its recent warnings of the Government's dependence upon its favour, the public will be curious to learn whether the promised proposals will be a challenge to the Labour Party's domination or a concession to its prejudices—another instalment in the process of doing what the Labour Party wants, as Mr. Savage last week described the terms on J which the Government will be allowed to remain in office.