NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 936, 1 April 1930, Page 10

NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE

INTERESTING REVIEW OF SYSTEM KITCHENER’S ADVICE Special to THE SUN WELLINGTON, Today. The announcement of the Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, that the United Government intends to revise the military training scheme, with the possible abolition of compulsory military service, lends interest to the fact that originally he was opposed to the scheme. The decision to review the defences of the country was not unexpected, for last session Mr. W. J. Jordan, Labour member for Manukau, was requested to withdraw his Abolition of Compulsory Military Training Bill on the ground that the Government was remodelling the system. However, as far back as 1908, Sir Joseph Ward informed a deputation which waited upon him shortly before the general election, that “there was a tremendous undercurrent of feeling” against the proposals of the National Defence League, which, from its headquarters in Auckland, had directed active propaganda toward the institution of a compulsory training Bill. Sir Joseph, stated that the country would never stand “conscription.” After the election, Sir Joseph stated that he realised the distinction between compulsory service and compulsory training and that the Government would propound a scheme of training which would be practically universal without introducing any elements of conscription. But under the influence of the anti-German scare which prompted the gift of a battle-cruiser by the Government to the people of Great Britain, the National Defence League renewed its propaganda and held a series of meetings throughout the country, Mr. R. McNab, who had been Minister of Defence until the election just past when he lost his seat, being one of the principal speakers. Sir Joseph was then at an Imperial Conference, but when he delivered his Budget speech on November 10, 1909, he announced simply that the Government would reorganise the defences on the compulsory principle. He was completely reticent on the question of what had effected the Government’s conversion to this attitude, and the House of Representatives probably reflected the opinion in the country when it passed the compulsory clauses in the Bill which followed by 65 votes to three.

However, though the Bill had become law. its operation was delayed. Lord Kitchener, who was due to arrive in New Zealand at the end of February, 1911, was asked to report on the defence systems of both Australia and New Zealand, and his re commendations included the raising of the age of service from 21 years to 25 years. This raised considerable opposition when the Government proposed to follow _his recommendations, especially among members who represented dairying districts, the interference with industry appearing to many members a grave objection to the proposed alteration in the law. It was found that Lord Kitchener required one-third of the available men to be trained, which reduced opposition, but even then it was found that a majority of the House wished to give the 21 years’ limit “a fair trial,” which meant that Kitchener’s scheme would have been jettisoned. But the Government, which was understood to have been gravely concerned about the matter, decided finally to put the 25 years’ clause through, and it is interesting to recall that while the Hon. W. F. Massey supported the 21 years’ limit, Sir James Allen fought for the higher age. Finally it was provided that the change should no# apply to anyone who was over 21 when the Act was passed, which led to the Government being taunted with the fact thatrit was prepared to legislate for those who had not any votes. The interesting point of the Kitchener scheme, on which the whole structure of the defence system was raised, was that it took into consideration the citizen armies of both Australia and New Zealand, and implied that they would be available to assist one another. So similar were the conditions, that Lord Kitchener did not trouble to prepare a special report for New Zealand, save in respect of harbour defences and some confidential matters, but sent the Prime Minister a copy of his Australian report. Considerable difficulty was experienced by Major-General Godley during the early portion of his work in applying the system to enable scattered units to be drilled in the country, and there was a good deal of opposition from men whose economic interests were affected. The defaulters’ list reached 564 by the end of 1911, though no return had then been made in respect of Canterbury Territorials. The difference of attitude of Labour voters is also remarkable. One of the strongest supporters of the scheme was Sir Arthur Guinness, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, who obtained a large majority over a Labour opponent in Grey.