The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1966. Sacrifices For Defence

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31005, 10 March 1966, Page 16

The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1966. Sacrifices For Defence

The published exchange of letters between the Dominion president of the Returned Services’ Association and the Prime Minister usefully supplemented the association’s deputation, in private, to Mr Holyoake last November. The letters put on public record two views of New Zealand’s defence capability; both showed concern for the size and equipment of the armed forces, particularly for recruiting and the rate of re-engagement of men after short-term service. The association made useful suggestions for making the conditions of employment and the standard of living in the armed forces more competitive with the attractions of civilian employment. But neither side in the debate proposed any measures certain to attract a large number of young men into the services especiallv into the Army, where they are most urgently needed. This was not surprising, for in todav’s strained economy all employers are short o staff'and the battle to obtain and to hold men is being fought on almost every front. The defence of a country should not, of course, have to depend on unemployment or under-employment to supply surplus manpower. When a country is committed, morally as well as by treaty, to contribute <.O an allied defence cause the need to make sacrifices in other fields is doubly necessary. This is a point which the associations president (Mr H. Mitchell) made when he drew the attention of Mr Holyoake to the last paragraph of the 1961 Review of Defence Policy. That paragraph said; To do our share in defending freedom is a tradition in this country. It is a tradition which this Government is determined to maintain. In this determination it believes itself to have the overwhelming support of the people of New Zealand. The task requires sacrifices: individual sacrifices by those called upon to serve, financial sacrifices by the country as a whole to meet ever-rising costs. The Government believes that these sacrifices will be made willingly to maintain New Zealand's freedom and preserve its way of life. In spite of the confidence expressed in 1961, the Government has not called on the country for the sacrifices which it believes would be willingly made. These sacrifices would not necessarily be made through higher taxation: they might be made through the diversion of Government spending from works which add to the comfort and convenience of everyday life They would certainly mean the diversion of‘more overseas funds from luxury imports to military equipment. Citizens would have to put up with less efficiency and slower advances in some parts of the economy. In Mr Mitchell’s opinion the only sacrifices made by New Zealand have been by individual servicemen in war. They, and their families, deserve all the support the country can afford. Notwithstanding the 1961 statement the Government has since then judged that the “ country as a whole ” is ready to afford much less than our allies for defence. Mr Holyoake argued that National Governments had shown “painstaking “concern to achieve levels of defence expenditure “ high enough to meet the sort of situation gauged “ as likely to arise, while still preserving a balance “ in the economy that ensures our ability to maintain “an adequate defence effort over the years . 1 hat is a sound policy if the Government rightly gauges the real requirements for defence. If it is difficult to recruit men it is essential that the “ productivity ” of the armed forces be the highest that can be achieved. This means that soldiers, sailors and irmen must have a sufficient supply’ of the right tools and machines for defence. Mr Holyoake said that the Government would acquire new ships for the Navy s the general economic and financial position permitted, and in the light <n current assessment of the military threat It takes at least three years to ' uild i frigate. The assessment must therefore be made of a military threat three vears or more in advance. More than a vear has passed since the Navy decided that a frigate must be leased to supply its needs. r| ’he delay can. be explained: nevertheless, it remains a delay Other equipment may take months to acquire and subsequent training with it requires time. Assessments of military threat can change overnight bu ‘ obligations have been plain for years. The White Paper on defence policy now in preparation will show whether the Government will act in 1966 to prove its conviction of 1961.