"Prussia of South Seas” MR. J. A. LEE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 114, 4 August 1927, Page 16

"Prussia of South Seas”

MR. J. A. LEE

Military Training the Subject of Lively Debate in the House

NO REPEAL OF COMPULSION

(THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Wednesday. \ S was anticipated, there was a brisk, and at times heated, debate in the House of Representatives this evening on the second reading of the Compulsory Military Service Repeal Bill, sponsored by Mr. J. A. Lee, who opened the engagement in a forceful style. Sharp verbal encounters between supporters and opponents of the Bill were frequent as evening wore on, and speakers on both sides were made to run the gauntlet of a fire of interjections from opposing forces. “We should manage to-night to break the silence which has prevailed for so long among Government members,” said Mr. Lee in introducing the Bill, “because I expect that before I have gone far in my discussion of conscription I shall have aroused a considerable amount of hostility from the Government benches.” Mr. Lee went on to say that he had included two repeal clauses in his Bill to abolish all reference to compulsory military service in the Defence Act, 1909. This would in no way prevent the Government from carrying on the defence system which it maintained

through the permanent forces. Compulsion was one of the rickety children of Imperial Conferences, at which delegates were largely representatives of Tory parties in the British Dominions. It would be wondered if anyone would say that New Zealand had received £8,000,000 of value for £ 8,000,000 that had been spent up to the present on compulsory military training. The Government’s own report in 1921 had been scathing condemnation of the efficacy of the system, Mr. Lee went on. and there could be no doubt that both parents and trainees looked upon it as a disagreeable legal obligation. What benefit had these young men got from learning to drill by numbers? He knew of a number of young men who had recently been in camp at Ngaruawahia, at considerable expense to the country, who had learned nothing but how to parade to receive a certain distinguished visitor. The young men left the healthy environment of their homes, and suspended their education, to learn how to turn and to slope arms and to salute by numbers, and to receive distinguished visitors. He believed that compulsion made the young men who were victims to it hate the State which imposed it on their unwilling beings. FIFTY THOUSAND PROSECUTIONS Nearly 50,000 youths had been prosecuted under the Defence Act. Could any moral benefit ensue to a young man who was hauled before a magistrate, browbeaten, and fined, simply because he would not perform a service he knew to be a farce? It had been suggested that some physical benefit resulted from military training, but a similar expenditure on playing fields would achieve a far greater result. Over a period of years £61,000 millions Had been spent on preparations for war, and only £46,000 millions on peace-time affairs. Far from leading in disarmament, we were leading in the race for armament, and we should be careful in our military preparations that we were not called the Prussia of the South Seas. The bill for military preparations in 1924-25 was £718.000, in 1926-27 it was £1,000,000 and now it was to be further increased. The old lie, “If you want peace, prepare for war,” had gone down to its death in the terrible years of 1914-18, but it had dragged down with it to death nine million brave men. After the tremendous expenditure in substance and life during the war years, the world was ripe for a naval and military holiday. MINISTER’S REPLY The Minister of Defence, the Hon. F. J. Rolleston, opened the counterattack to Mr. Lee’s offensive. Mr. Lee’s speech had been purely destructive, he said, and lacked a consecutive line of reasoning. He had not said what he wanted in place of military conscription.

Mr. Lee: Nothing. The permanent forces will do. Mr. Rolleston: If military service is objectionable under compulsion, it j must be equally objectionable under j the volunteer system. The big difference between the two systems is that one is fair and democratic, and the other is unfair and undemocratic. The member for Auckland East is supporting the latter. The obligation to provide for the defence of the State is ad- j mitted. There were splendid com- j panies of volunteers, but they were not sufficient to provide an adequate force, and as a result it was considered the fairest way to make everybody take a share of the burden. “Mr. Lee is not advocating that we should leave New Zealand entirely undefended, but that we should leave it to the other fellow, and let England or our volunteer force defend us. Is that a fair attitude?” Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton): England has not got conscription. Government Members: She has a standing army. Mr. Rolleston went .on to saj r that the compulsory system was fair and just, and democratic, because everyone was bound to make himself efficient and take his share in the defence of his country. Mr. Lee must know perfectly well that military training embraced more than the teaching of saluting by numbers, and that the camp at Ngaruawahia was not confined to preparation for ceremonial parade. Mr. Lee had referred to the report of 1921, but there was a revulsion of feeling after the war, and the department would admit that the military training scheme was then at a low ebb. REAWAKENED INTEREST Mr. Rolleston quoted the report of the General Officer Commanding New Zealand Forces as showing that all units this year had been able to do more advanced field work, and that there had been a reawakened interest on the part of the public. The speaker did not know where Mr. Lee had got the statement that there had been 50,000 prosecutions under the Defence Act. Mr. Lee: I said getting on for 50,000. Mr. H. E. Holland: Why are they not included in the defence report? Mr. Rolleston: I don’t know. Mr. Holland: They should be. Mr. Rolleston: The hon. gentleman may have some justification for saying that, but I do not think they could have amounted to half that number. In nine months during 1925-26 there were 682 prosecutions among over 50,000 cadets and territorials, and the number of prosecutions for failure to attend camps in the same period was three only, out of a force of 20,000 men. Men like camps, and look forward to them. Mr. Lee had asked what was the necessity for training a military force, and said that there was no fear of attack. He must have overlooked the fact that it was because of the British Navy that New Zealand was immune. Mr. McCombs: If we are immune, why have a defence force? Mr. Rolleston: That is exactly the attitude the Labour Party takes up.

Let Britain provide the defence! Is that a fair and honest attitude. New Zealand does not stand alone in the matter of defence, but has obligations to do her duty with the rest of the Empire. Mr. H. E. Holland: What country have you in mind as a prospective enemy? • Mr. Rolleston: He wants me to say “Japan,” I suppose, but I am not going to do so. Suppose this Bill is passed, does he think that Japan will hold a meeting to consider the effect of it? In conclusion, the Minister quoted the statements of Colonel P. C. Fenwick regarding the benefits of drill to the youth of the country. Mr. V. H. Potter, Roskill. was convinced that 90 per cent, of New Zealanders would be bitterly opposed to repeal of the Act. Why on earth, he asked, should volunteers carry shirkers on their backs? The debate was carried on principally by Labour members until 12.55 a.m., when a division was taken, and the second reading was lost by. 51 votes Ito 11.