NO REPEAL OF COMPULSION

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 730, 1 August 1929, Page 7

NO REPEAL OF COMPULSION

Military Training System LABOUR BILL THROWN OUT (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. BY 46 votes to 21 the House of Representatives, after sitting’ until midnight, rejected Mr. W. J. Jordan’s Compulsory Military Service Repeal Bill. The debate on the second reading, was rather on the prim side, considering the subject. There was very little sparkle, and the speakers chose to treat the subject more academically than spiritedly.

Mr. Jordan spoke of the large amount of money spent op the military service system. Since the beginning of the scheme 40,000 young men had been prosecuted for not rendering military service. Only 62 per cent, of the young men of New Zealand were rendering service, and there was a great number exempted. The system should he made voluntary In time of peace. New Zealand was spending thousands of pounds on the League of Nations to which we looked to render service. If we were to continue to support the League, we must discontinue military training. The question was big enough to submit to the people. (Hear, hear). Under the voluntary system Mr. Jordan believed the number of trainees would be equal to that of today and a new spirit would arise. At present young men gave up training at 21 years of age because they did not like the system. If the Bill were thrown out the time would come when the Government itself would have to draft a Bill to do away with compulsory training. The country would demand the decision. He moved the second reading. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Otago Central) doubted if the State was getting value for money under the system, but the system was not only providing a nucleus of men for war, but it was the only efficient means in the country of securing physical training. He thought the House would be foolish in repealing the system without providing a substitute. “EXTREME LABOUR”

Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) was surprised to hear the mover of the Bill say that the subject was not a party one. He had thought it was a main plank in the platform of the extreme Labour Party. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): What party? Mr. Lysnar: The extreme Labour Party. Mr. Parry: Which is the other Labour Party?

Mr. Speaker: Order! There is too much interruption. Mr. Lysnar was pulled up later by Mr. Speaker for trying to discuss the Labour Party. He weut on to say that it was advisable that young men should have the benefit of such physical training before entering trade and business. He thought, however, that after that stage the training could be relaxed. He supported the compulsory clauses, which should not be repealed, as they prevented a young man front going into the paths of dissipation. Mr. T„ W. McDonald (Wairarapa) thought the Bill too extreme. It would abolish every rifle club in New Zealand. Also, he could not countenance the abolition of the. secondary school cadets. What was needed was an overhaul of the present system, which was au extravagant waste of public money. Mr. tV. E. Barnard (Napier) supported the Bill, and deplored the war spirit. He thought a system of compulsory physical training would not be objected to. VOTING FOR THE BILL Mr. H. M. Rushworth (Bay of Islands) expressed himself as a pacifist at heart. However, he believed that the next war would be caused by economic disparity in the Pacific, and that to maintain a high standard of living the Labour Party would be the most military party in New Zealand. Under the present system, however, New Zealand might as well train with bows and arrows. To make a first-class soldier, a man must he an anarchist, and that was not desired. He stressed the importance of the air service as a defensive arm, which was better than the training of infantry. There was no esprit de corps among conscripts, and ho himself preferred one volunteer to ten pressed men. He believed the Bill would not pass. He had been told it was very dangerous to take part In a division on the Bill.

“I don’t care,” he said;- “I’m voting for the Bill.” The Rev. C. L. Carr (Timaru) inveighed against war and preparation for war, and said that war mongers

were the Don Quixotes of today tilting at windmills. Sir Joseph Ward said that the debate would do much good. He believed the matter should rest where it was. Mr. Carr and Mr. Rushworth had both mentioned air defence. Mr. Carr said that he (Sir Joseph) and Mr. Wilford differed on the question of how New Zealand should be defended. He was wrong, Sir Joseph said. There was not room for two systems of defence, and it had io be seen whether it would be advisable to see If the present system should be done away with. Replying to an Interjection from Mr. Jordan, Sir Joseph said that he would not allow the Bill to go further. Mr. McCombs: The responsibllitj’ is on its opponents.

Sir Joseph said that if, as Mr. Carr wanted, the armies of the world were disbanded, the cruel unemployment system would be aggravated. Mr. H. E. Holland: But that has nothing to do with the Bill. Mr. R. Semple (Wellington East): Put them to honest work. Let them till the soil. “WORTHY VIEWS” The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Holland, expressed the hope that the House would agree to the second reading and allow the Bill to go through the committee stages. He said that some members, who pledged themselves on the hustings against military training, were taking up a different attitude now. He deplored that boys of lofty character should he dragged before courts and told they were only fit to clean latrines, and deprived of their civil rights. He considered that objectors should not be penalised for having worthy views, differing from the law of militarism. He considered that the compulsory element should be wiped out altogether.* The biggest fight he had taken part in in the country was that in which he had endeavoured to save the wives and children of men away at the front from being exploited. Mr. Jordan: Do you want another war ? Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Holland said that compulsory militarism would tend to develop greater warfare than in the Great W ar.

Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) twitted Mr. Holland on the adoption of au inconsistent attitude. He was an individualist in this question, and stood for compulsion on other questions. Was that reasonable? Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): It’s perfectly reasonable if you knew what you were talking about. Mr. Fletcher said that as long as compulsory training was concerned with national defence he was in favour of the Bill. On the question being put that the bill he read a second time a division was called for and the division bells were rung for the first time this session. The result was as follows: AYES—2I Armstrong Langstone Barnard McCombs Burnett McDougall Carr McKern Chapman Martin Fraser Mason Hawke Munns H. E. Holland O’Brien Howard Parry Jenkins Savage Jordan Semple NOES—46 Ansell Linklater Atmore Lysnar Bitchener McDonald Black Macmillan Bodkin Makitanara Broadfoot Massey Campbell Murdoch Clinkard Nash Coates Xgata Cobbe Poison Dickie Ransom Donald Samuel Field Smith Fletcher St a 11 worthy Forbes Sykes Hall Taverner Hamilton Yeitcli Harris Waite Healy Ward Tlogan Wilkinson H. Holland Williams Jones AVright Kyle Young PAIRS Noes: Wilford and Stewart. Ayes: Sullivan and Rushworth. The House rose at 12.23.