VOLUNTARY SYSTEM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 18918, 21 January 1936, Page 2

VOLUNTARY SYSTEM

MILITARY TRAINING HAS IT FAILED? AUSTRALIAN POSITION SYDNEY, .Tun. 10. There is a growing feeling among -undents of the Australian defence forces that the present system of volimtarv training is being given a final i rial,' and that, unless the. number of volunteers increases substantially within the next lew months, the Commonwealth Government, will lie compelled, in the next financial year, to revert to some system of compulsory training' in order to ensure the building up of adequate reserves ot manpower for the defence of Australia.

The latest figures issued by the military authorities show that, at September 30 last, the number of militia officers and men in the Coiunweallh had declined to 2(>,X75. The strength at June 30 was -7,078, nml at March 30, 27.402, which showed a decrease of .about 130 in the previous three months. It, will be seen, therefore, that the figures, as far us they have been published, show a, steady decline. Soon after the March figures were made available, Colonel P. M. McFarlane, who had just been appointed Base Commandant for South Australia, stated in a public address that ‘ ‘something would have to be done, or the voluntary training system would crush.-”

Colonel MeFaDane said that the mill fury authorities were having the greatest difficulty in holding the volunteer iimiy together.

The Minister for Defence, Mr Parkhill, commenting on these statements, said that those responsible for the administration of the voluntarv svstem would have to make greater efforts. It was too early to snv that the volnntarv svslem had failed.

Presumably, those responsible for Australian defence admin ist rat ion nave made everv effort possible in Dip seven months that have elapsed since Mr Pn I'kliill’s statement was made Certainly everything possible seems to have been done lo add to the att raetiveness of military training, but in spite of brighter uniforms, and greater financial provision for practical training and camps, the figures show that young Australia is less and less interested in military activities.

FEWER VOLUNTEERS THAN IN 19(10 Just how great lias been the falling off in enthusiasm is shown by the fuel, thiil ;il flip time of the Federation, Die Commonwealth took over from the States voluntary militia organisations with ;a total strength of 27,.”23. At that time Die male population of Australia, was about. 1,977,00(1. Yet in 1935, when the male population was was about 3,400,000, only 20,875 young men could be found who were prepared to devote part, of their leisure to military training. The remarkable keenness and efficiency of the pre-federation militias has been described by many observers who were -associated with one or other of the various State organisations of those days. These forces were welded by Major General sir Edward lluiion, for the Commonwealth, into a well organised and enthusiastic defence force for the infant nation. Yei as early as 1904, Mr W. At. Hughes, then a private Labor member, tabled in the House of Representatives the first motion in favor of compulsory military training. The motion was rejected, but only three years after Mr Alfred 'Deakin, then Prime Minister, forecast the first compulsory military training measure, which was intro (bleed the following year. The defeat of the Deakin Ministry, and subse-

quo lit Iv of Die first Fisher Ministry (n hicli had juojjosed an even more rigorous compulsory training measure than that advanced by Mr Deakin) delnvod the introduction of Die system, which was finally instituted in 191 I, alter Lord Kitchener had made his famous report on Dir- defence of the Commonwealth. In 1929 the Scullin Government saspen (led compulsory training, describing it as inefficient, and -costly. A former Alinister for Defence, Sir William Glasgow, who had himself a distinguished war record, said at that time, ‘‘l am satisfied that no other system would prove as efficient, economical, and democratic.” Present indications are that Sir William Glasgow was right. A month ago the Minister for Defence, Air Rarkhill, stated in Sydney, “Our army is essentially citizen in diameter. An important, responsibility therefore devolves on Die young men of the community to see that the peace establishment of 35,000 is maintained at strength. The present, strength is 27,000. The Government also again appeals to employers to facilitate leave for employees to attend training, and thus encourage recruiting.” The Chamber of Manufactures, in its most recent bulletin, officially urges its members to encourage their employees to enlist in the citizen army, tl |ioints oat-that the training of Dio citizen soldier teaches discipline, loyalty, self-reliance, and initi-ative-qualities which make the trainees better emjdoyees, and which qualify them for executive positions of responsibility. Other omjdoyoi's’ organisations have made similar ajijieals. In the final resort, however, the responsibility lies with Die young men of Australia. If their response is not much, more satisfactory than it: lias been in the last year, it seems jirobable that 1936 may see the necessity for a. reconsideration by the Commonwealth Government of the whole system of military training.