Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, SEPT. 13, 1929. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 244, 13 September 1929, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, SEPT. 13, 1929. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

The Defence Estimates were under discussion in the House of Representatives on Tuesday when, for the first time in the history of the Dominion, an attempt was made by Labour members to make the expenditure on naval and military defence a party question. ALr H. E. Holland, the Labour leader, who initiated the attack, declared that “there is a general feeling right through the country that the expenditure in these (defence) directions is altogether too high.” The House was being asked to vote £504,967 for naval defence and some £490,587 for the Defence Department. The former vote showed'a decrease of £22,033 compared with that of 1928-29, and could only have been curtailed further by revising, or rather departing from, the agreement made with the British Admiralty for the maintenance of the cruisers of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy, the naval ratings on those vessels being about equally composed of New Zealanders and Britishers. That agreement was made at the Imperial Conference and Air Coates, as the representative of this Dominion, also agreed to contribute a sum of £1,900,000 towards the Singapore Base in the course of the ensuing eight years. Parliament sanctioned both arrangements, but Air Holland, while admitting that the House had ratified the report of the Imperial Conference, contended on Tuesday that Air Coates, as Prime Alinister, had made the matter a party one, as “with his enormous majority he was able to carry anything through the House.” The Alinister of Defence (Air AViLford) made it clear that had it not been for the amount set apart for the Calliope Dock, which is. to be enlarged for the convenience ■ of the navy, the naval vote would have shown a further decrease this year. The opposition to the vote was practically confined to Labour members, although Air W. J. Poison voted with Hr H. E. Holland on the amendment moved by the latter that the total defence vote be reduced by £l, as an indication that the vote should be further substantially reduced. The member for Timaru made the rather absurd suggestion that New Zealand was trying to “wag the dog” by expending so much on defence, “when the whole attitude of the present British Government and the whole trend of European statesmanship to-day” was in the direction of reducing

armaments. To talk of “embarrassing the statesmen who are working for disarmament and peace,” because the New Zealand Parliament is spending under £1,000,000 this year for defence purposes is ridiculous nonsense. It will be a bad day for New Zealand and the Empire if this business of defence is to become the sport of party politics, as it appears to be becoming in the hands of Labour. The naval vote, which carries with it the small amount devoted to aerial defence, cannot well be reduced while the present agreement with the British Admiralty is maintained. It is, of course, open to the British Government to say that it would be sufficient for New Zealand to maintain only one cruiser in the New Zealand Naval Division, but we are inclined to think that such a decision would meet with but little approval here. So far as the Defence Force is concerned, there should be room for a considerable reduction iu the expenditure upon upkeep. The changed conditions of warfare, as illustrated during the 1914-1918 upheaval, shpw that much of the military training that men undergo in times of peace is useless in the battlefield, and that providing a man is accustomed to and hardened by physical exercises, and that he can shoot and is well disciplined, he can, in a very short period, fit himself for the arduous work iu the fighting line. By encouraging the formation of rifle clubs and substituting a system of volunteering for the present compulsory service, and making better use of the scout system, the youth of this country could be as well trained for defence purposes as under the existing system which turns out more automatons than efficients in military service. The cadet system has its good points, but the scout system is better, in that it teaches self-reliance, initiative, and resourcefulness in times of emergency. Place a well-trained scout side by side with a cadet who knows nothing of scout craft, and the former would simply lose the latter with his superior knowledge and adaptability to any circumstances in which he may find himself. The one great mistake that has been made in connection with the scout movement in this country, is found in the fact that it is practically confined to boys of too tender an age to develop along the lines its founder, Lord Baden-Powell, intended. By the time the boy scout is taking a real interest in its development, the cadet system takes hold of him, and he is unable to carry on with both, and the comparative freedom of the one is replaced by the more stereotyped military training of the other.