THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1930. MILITARY TRAINING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20642, 14 August 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1930. MILITARY TRAINING.

It: would be quite a mistake to think that the quiet reception given by Parliament to the bill amending the Defence Act indicates a general willingness, either in Parliament or in the country,' to see compulsory military training abandoned. The reading of the bill a first time is only its formal entry to the usual legislative process. On the second reading, and afterwards in committee of the House, there will bo full opportunity to discuss the purport of the measure, and it is certain that vigorous opposition will bo offered. It was competent, of course, for any member to avail himself of the right to question the Minister of Defeuce on the purport of the measure when it was introduced by him to be read a first time; and there was provided justification for such inquiry in what the Defence Department has already done in anticipation of the passing of the bill. But members were evidently too eager to resume the debate on the customs tariff to intervene with any question, and so the first reading was accorded without comment. They have not forfeited their right to put questions on it, and that they will later exercise this in a very "thoroughgoing way is as certain as anything can be. Without recourse to Parliament, compulsory training has been already suspended, to all intents and purposes, and this action calls for explanation on the floor of the House. By whatever technical right it has been done, this suspension is so dragtic, so woJutionary, so prejudicial to the established' system, and withal so obviously in conflict with a large body of public opinion, that it will be difficult to explain to the satisfaction of either the House or the country. It can be made a ground of very strong condemnation of the Government; it ought to be so made, and there is no doubt that it will be.

The purport of the bill is to give statutory effect to a decision already made by the Government —to suspend compulsory military training and to make provision for the recognition, during the period of suspension, of voluntary organisations formed for the purpose of such training. Apparently, the Government is not prepared to go the whole way of definitive abandonment of the system, aud some may be prepared to excuse the suspension on the ground of economy.' But what is proposed is tantamount to abandonment. There can be no mistake about that. Suspension for a year means striking a staggering blow at the system. Does anyone suppose that at the end of the stated period it will be automatically revived ? Legislatively, this is supposedly so; but practically—and in such a matter as defence it is the practical consideration that counts—what must happen is the beginning over again with difficulty. The mere maintenance of a cadre of commissioned and noncommissioned officers in the interval will not bridge the gap effectually. Organisation cannot be resumed where it- was left off. Ground will have been lost. Units will have been disbanded. A year of potential training will have been displaced by a year of neglect, and it is contrary to experience in all things human to imagine that the resumption would be marked by anything approaching the efficiency and keenness of the territorial force to which Major-General Young has made reference in his latest annual report. The Government does not imagine this: it has abandonment in view, and should have been honest enough to say so. Why, if this be not so, is volunteering openly suggested as a substitute ? If the Government is foolish enough to think that the prospect of but twelve months of "voluntary organisation" is going to arouse any enthusiasm for this form of training and to induce erstwhile territorials to take it up as a substitute, so much the worse for the Government's reputation for wisdom, already sadly damaged. But surely this utter descent of foolishness has not been taken! Yet to give the Government credit for a modicum of sanity is, in this instance, to accuse it of a determination to wreck the territorial system deliberately and beyond speedy repair. It has camouflaged its intention by this precious suggestion of "voluntary organisations," but the camouflage is so patent that it will hardly deceive anybody.

That the Government is not sincere in ..its profession merely to contemplate suspension for a year is plainly shown by a further consideration. Its Labour supporters cannot very well accept the bill if its intention be explained as one of mere financial necessity and not the injury of the compulsory system. The United Party holds oflice on the sufferance of the Labour Party, and does not expect to get a continuance of that support for nothing. Labour, in short, has its price, and the Government must needs pay it or go out of oflice. This bill is part of the price demanded. Just a year ago, Labour produced a Compulsory Military Service Repeal Bill, on lines laid down in previous bills of tho kind emanating from the party. All these bills were frankly aimed at the destruction of the compulsory system; they did not play with the idea of suspension. Is Labour now satisfied with mere suspension, coupled with an intention of resuming compulsory training? This sudden chaugo of heart is a greater tax on credulity than the belief that Labour had really swallowed its principles on tho primage duty at the end of last session. To do Labour justice, it has consistently opposed compulsory military training. It is the United Party that has changed front. On the Labour bill of last year to repeal the compulsory system, tho United Party, except four members, voted against the measure and ensured its rejection: every member of the present

Ministry—save Sir Thomas Sidey, not a member of the House—did so, and not one of them raised his voice to promise even suspension. Now they count on Labour's support of this bill, and doubtless it will be given.' Why 1 Because Labour knows quite well that the measure, while apparently anticipating resumption of compulsory training, must damage the system and is in reality designed to do so. To a discerning public, it is only a clumsily gilded sixpence, but Labour has assurance that, as part of the price for its support to keep the Government in oflice, it will be redeemed as a half-sdvereign and therefore accepts it as such.