DEFENCE REORGANISATION.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 31, 30 October 1937, Page 4

DEFENCE REORGANISATION.

The Govemment's scheme for reorganising the administration of defence in JNew Zealand, outlined early in August by the Ministar of Defence, the Hon. F. Jonesj has now taken more definite shape. The Air Force Bill, the Air Department Bill, and the Army Board Bill, introduced in the House of Kepresentatives a few dhys ago, provide for the creation of boards which wili exercise the same functions in respect of air and land forces as are at present exercised by the Naval Board in respect of naval forces. Upon this already elaborate structure will be superimposed a JNa; tional Defence Council consisting of the Prime Minister, the Ministers for Uefetace, Finance, and Marine, the Speaker of the House of RepresetativeSj Mr J. A. Lee, the Stecretary of the Treasury, and. the chiefs of the' three tighting services. There are three objections to this scheme, says the Christchurch Pre&s. The tirst is that, for a country with very small defence forces, it seems unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome, The second is that effective authority is much too widely dispersed. The purpose of the National Defence Council is to co-ordinate the activities of the three defence , services. The best and simplest way of securing this co-ordination would have been to enlarge the powers of the Minister of Defence and to make him the chairman of a council consisting only of tho three gervice heads in addition to himself. The arrangement now contemplated weakens the position of the Minister for Defence by making him only one among four Ministers on the National Defence Council. What makes the arrangement more absurd is that all policy decisions ait'ecting defence will, as Mr Lee is careful to point out, be taken by Gabinet as members of the council. Their presence will not add anything to the authority of the decisions reached ; it will merely protract discussions. The final objection is that the civilian element in the council is in too great a majority. It may be true that national defence cannot safely be left eotclusively in the hands of professional soldiers ; but seven civilians in a council of 10 is a sarious underrating of tho value of expert knowledge.