To The Editor

Taupo Times, Volume XII, Issue 52, 6 July 1965, Page 4

To The Editor

Sir, — It is a cold job delivering papers these winter nights and I want to pay tribute to a lad who delivers the Taupo Times in Rifle Range Road. I asked him if he would put the paper in the porch as it so often blew away in our open box. This gave him extra work, so last 1 evening I offered him compensation for his trouble. j His reply. was "no thank you, I am a sea scout and we are taught to serVe." With this outlook from our youth we should have no fear for the future of our country. — Yours, etc., MISS P. R. OLDHAM.

AIRCRAFT Sir, — Criticism of the action of New Zealand's Chief of Air Staff, Air Vice-Marshal I. G. Morrison, in publicising his well-informed opinion on possible i-eplacement aircraft for the Royal New Zealand Air Force should not go unchallenged. Air Marshal Morrison saw fit to say what he thought should be the replacement aircraft, and that is a matter of great interest to the public, who will have to foot the bill. He made it quite clear that he was not expressing Government policy. The comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Marshall, and the former Chief of Defence, Vice-Ad-miral P. Phipps, amount to a reprimand for Air Marshall Morrison. It seems incredible that either Mr Marshall or Admiral Phipps should have made their opinions public.

If any reprimand was thought to be necessary, it could have been referred to the Prime Minister, Mr Holyoake, on his return to New Zealand, and, no doubt, he would have first consulted Cabinet.

Customs of the service preclude Air Marshal Morrison from publically answering Mr Marshall and Admiral Phipps, nor may any serving officers or airmen speak up on their chiefs behalf. There are many former servicemen, however, who are not bound to be rnute, and it is safe to say that the majority of them would applaud Air Marshal Morrisons action, and applaud it publiely.

To many, the comment from Admiral Phipps must seem most unnecessary on the eve of his retirement . — particularly as he has been pressing for the Royal New Zealand Navy 's needs, which he has been careful to state. No right thinking person, including Air Force officers and airniffn, would deny Admiral Phipps's right to tell the public what he thought the Navy needed. It seems, however, that he reserves

for himself the right to criticise Air Marshal Morrison for similar action on behalf of the Air Force for the public's information. The New Zealand forces have recently had a trinity of three strong chiefs of staff — all New Zealanders — and it is unfortunate that Admiral Phipps should have spoken as he did. There is no such thing as the most important service. All three are dependent on the other two and, together, they have achieved a measure of understanding and co-opera-

tion which is essential in modern times. Each chief of staff should have a free hand to tell the public what they think is best for their own particular service. It is realised that the decisions must be made at the highest level, but the public have a right to know the possibilities. Chiefs of staff should not have to suffer humiliation from politicians, nor from each other. They should

not be expected to give deference to political views, whether expressed by Mr Marshall or anyone else, when it comes to keeping the public informed of possible replacement ships, arms or aircraft. Stifling of our chiefs of staff will keep the public in complete ignorance of things they should know prior to the adoption by Government of rearmament policy. — Yours, etc.,

B S.

NICHOLL,

Group Captain (Retired)