I move amendment No. 11 :—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (d), line 32, to delete the word " five " and substitute the word " three ".
This is a very simple amendment. The policy up to the moment has been to appoint these officers for a period not exceeding three years. That has been the policy since 1924. In 1924, this limitation to five years was specifically included for the first time in the Ministers and Secretaries Act of that year, I think. There were reasons why that was brought in at the time into which it is not necessary for me to go now, but it was then explained that the reason was to prevent what is known as a sense of proprietorship developing in certain holders of these military offices. For quite a number of years, officers were appointed for three years and when they had completed that period, they ceased to be employed in one of these principal military offices.
That idea was subsequently carried on, but when the three years' period was up the officer was reappointed, and the result has been that over a long period the Army has had a couple of Chiefs of Staff who have been reappointed and reappointed. I do not for one moment say that that was bad, nor is there any necessity for me to point out that it is good. Now it is proposed in this sub-section that the period of appointment be five years and, of course, the holder will be eligible for reappointment. I feel that there is a certain misconception about this. An officer who holds a particular military office may or may not give satisfaction in a period of three years, but it is a very simple thing, if he is not satisfactory at the end of three years, to appoint somebody else, but it is difficult to terminate his employment at the end of three years, although it can be done. The general thing would be that, unless he was very bad, he would continue for five years.
The original idea was that a person who filled one of these principal military offices would render service in that office for a period of three years, and, at the end of the period, would be appointed out to some other post, in a command, over a corps or something else. It is the idea in continental armies. It prevents people getting into a rut, and by bringing up experienced officers to the administrative staff it helps to keep the army alive and progressing. We have got to a position recently in which when a person has filled the position of Chief of Staff, he retires. That is a practice which has grown up, but there is no obligation on a Chief of Staff to retire. He may simply cease to hold his appointment as Chief of Staff and can be appointed to any other military position.
In the general way, five years in the life of a soldier or an officer is a long period, and if a person gives excellent service in a period of three years, he can be reappointed, but if he is just the type who plods along without doing very much—doing no great harm and not much good—he can hold the job for a period of five years. That is not, in my view, conducive to efficiency, and for that reason I would prefer to have the period limited to three years. If a person is so outstandingly good that he should be reappointed, then he should be reappointed.