SCRAPPING THE DEFENCE SYSTEM

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 83, 4 October 1930, Page 14

SCRAPPING THE DEFENCE SYSTEM

(To the' Editor.)

Sii'j—l would ask a little space iii youv columns to niako refcionco to the pioblcm of Impelial.Defence, which was l.iised m the House by certain membeis on the 30th September. The true position ot New Zealand in this matter is not dicamt ot by the man in the street, and theic ]> a gra\-e possibility that ' the people of this country will realise too late the tiemendous debt which they owe to the taxpayers of Great Britain.

It has become geueially accepted that the men of New Zealand' Ment to Fiance and Asia aiid died theie in defence ot the Mother Countiy'. Nothing is farther from the truth, and "the sooner this is realised the safer it will be tor al] concerned. New Zealauders died that New Zealand might icmain a free country. Australians died that Australia might remain Aliidans, and the colonial foices generafricaus,' and the colonial foices generally, but the stark tiuth is that the British .Tommy died for, the Empire alone. If there1 had'been no Empire threat Britain would never, have been drawn into the war.

I know I shall- be attacked for stating the truth as it is, and-1 know that the aveiage New Zealander is afraid of the truth in this matter. Nevertheless, it is in economic truism that Great Britain could cany on quite well without the 'colonies, and the colonies could not exist as free'nations-for* ten days without the protection souinguidginglj' given, them by the taxpayer at Home. How many, oL.those who would scrap nut defence,, system know, anything of the means whereby this Dominion js defended? The great British Navy is, paid foi by taxpayers whose standard of living is far below that pertaining heie. The heroic Biitish-Islcs staggering beneath the gigantic <> burden of war debt are besides cairying taxation for Imperial defence 400 percent, per individual in excess of that paid l).y the Canadian,.soo per cent, in excess of, that paid by 'the. Australian, and 1000 percent, in excess of that paid by the individual New ijealander. "sJct the average wage-in Biitain is oulv one-third the average colonial wage.-, \These facts may be culled fiom the',League..of Nations Armaments" Year Book.) • It 'has (been ■fctatcd that Britain could not live without the colonies. " This is a- cheap old lie which has soothed colonials until, they Iwye grown to believe that they'can seek protection" of Bntiih aims without bothering to lccognis'e their ovn responsibility. -

Great ' Britain could feed • herself .'■ and defend her trade route at one-tenth the cost by dropping the Empire and depending on the trade with the South American Continent. In the Argentine alone there is laid out 400 millions of Britisli capital, and their annual trade with Croat Britain is double that of Australia-and New Zealand together. Were the British taxpayer relieved of the crushing burden of defence taxation costs could be l educed and Britain could compete moie favourably m the woild'n markets. But the Homey, impelled by a wonderful spirit of Empiic brotherhood, has refused to take that .view, and while the well-paid colonial worker grouses • about ,i paltry thousand or s>o,foi" his own defence' the 'starving toilers of the Homeland continue to pay' for and defend this Dominion. I am an Englishman, and proud of it, and I.would appeal to the public of New Zealand to demand a stronger and more efficient means, of defending: this country. New Zcalnndeis owe it to themselves lest tomorrow it may be too late.—l am, etc., WILL. SMITH.