Compulsory Training

Southland Times, Issue 23766, 14 March 1939, Page 6

Compulsory Training

TN a broadcast address reported J- this morning from Sydney the Labour Premier of Tasmania urged the introduction of compulsory military training. This is by no means the first time Mr Ogilvie has advocated a measure which is usually rejected or strenuously resisted by Labour politicians. Although the Premier claimed that the Tasmanian Government shared his belief it is probably true that he has played a decisive part in shaping an attitude which amounts to a reversal of policy. Much surprise was caused in Australia and elsewhere when the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labour Party, at its annual conference last year, announced that it favoured “the introduction of universal physical and home defence training.” The decision was made on the motion of Mr Ogilvie, who had returned from a world tour convinced that what had happened to Abyssinia and Spain might some day happen to Australia unless the Commonwealth adopted an' adequate system of defence. Since then he has continued to attack the Federal Government’s policy, under which the voluntary system is to be allowed a “fair trial” before further consideration is given to compulsory service.

Much the same position exists in New Zealand, except that here the response to appeals for recruits to the territorial forces has been lamentably below the response of Australian youth, possibly because the appeals have been made half-heartedly. It could be claimed, indeed, that the voluntary system has already had a fair trial and that it has failed to meet defence requirements. Very soon the conscription issue will have to be faced in this Dominion. An argument frequently used against it by Labour supporters is that compulsion is' “undemocratic” and could be made a first step towards fascism; but this possibility has not daunted the Tasmanian Labour Party. Both Australia and New Zealand have had compulsory training in the past, and in neither* case was it followed by changes or even modifications in the political regime. The unanswerable argument is that no defence can be adequate unless it has the fullest support in man-power. So far in New Zealand that support has not been offered.