Hawks insist on conservative defence remits

Press, Issue 33844, 16 May 1975, Page 1

Hawks insist on conservative defence remits

(From OLIVER RIDDELL. WeDngton rep.-rter of "The Pres.- )

Phe hawks of the Labour Party had a field day against the doves when the report of the defence and international affairs committee was considered by the Labour Party conference in Wellington y esterday .

I’he key remit of the report, "that New Zealand declare itself neutral and that the Armed Forces he disbanded.’’ was rejected by a large majority, on the recommendation of the committee.

Dove speakers realised! ithat this resolution had no! I chance as long as it called I for disbandment of the ; Armed Forces, and they pro-' [moted an amendment that I “New Zealand should declare I itself neutral.” which was I also rejected. i The member of Parliament for St Albans, Mr R. P. B Drayton—a retired squadron [leader —who chaired the [meeting, asked the commit-' tee delegates just what neutrality would cost New Zealand. He said that the Armed Forces did a great deal of valuable civil defence, search and rescue, and reconstruction work—particularly in Fiji after last year’s cyclone. “I agree that we cannot be neutral and at the same time have no Armed Forces,” said Mr L. R. Stanton, the candidate for the East Coast Bays electorate. "But we should discontinue being tied to the coat-tails of the United States and sheltering under its nuclear umbrella, even if [this entails an increase in our[ [Armed Forces.” A further amendment' from Miss Vicki Buck (New Brighton) “that New Zealand declare itself non-aligned,! and that limited Armed Forces be used in this con-. text,” was also heavily defeated,

‘Already neutral’ Mr G. A. T. Leckey (Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union) said that New Zealand was already effectively neutral—certainly more so than Switzerland which had neutrality as a stated policy but where every male was supplied with a weapon and ammunition by his Government.

The conference also re-1 jected a remit “that the ■ Armed Forces be amalgam-! ated into one service as in Canada” after Mr B. H. Payton (Wellington Central) had reported that the experiment in Canada was being disbanded because it had proved ineffective and led to loss of morale.

Almost without exception,! strong dove resolutions were, criticised by Mr Drayton and [ then rejected by the conference, and on some of these resolutions the doves did not even seek a vote. This was the fate of resolutions calling • for the defence budget to be frozen at the 1974 level, and for the Government to recognise "the absurdity of attempting to maintain a modern and effect-• ive Air Force and Navy for! strategic and military pur- ! poses.” Stuck with it The doves made a determined effort to get the conference to agree “that no replacement be purchased for 1 I the recently written-off Skyjhawk,” but the Minister of! I Defence (Mr Fraser) told the [conference that even if the ’Skyhawk had been a bad [choice New Zealand was; • stuck'with the plane. “To attract and keep pilots, the R.N.Z.A.F. needs’ [operational as well as train-! jing aircraft, and it also 1 [needs to be able to maintain! ’aircraft numbers within the [group,” he said.

The conference rejected the call not to replace the Skyhawk by an overwhelming margin.

When the conference began considering defence matters, there was a flood of amendments on almost every one. But hardly a single amendment was accepted by the conference, and the later remits were passed without any discussion and without Mr Drayton being called upon to explain any of them. This was the complete opposite of last year’s conference, when almost every recommendation his committee made was amended or rejected outright. Army union Mr M. D. J. Butler (Wellington . Rubber Workers’ Union) moved “that a suitable system of industrial unionism be introduced into the permanent Armed Forces, following the Netherlands and Federal German precedents” but Mr Leckey described the idea as “crazy” and the conference gave the idea no 'fjlpport.

I The question of sending I conscripts overseas saw [some unanimity among delegates. It was decided that [“no conscripts be sent to serve overseas in combat areas,” which was a greatly watered down version of the i original resolution “that no conscripts be sent to serve overseas unless first approved by a national i referendum.” [ The conference rejected a [ resolution calling on it “to note, with dismay, the Gov[ernment’s recognition of the [ Soviet-dominated Baltic States,” and international affairs remits from the committee received the same friendly reception from the conference as the defence remits. The conference supported recognition of the new governments of South Vietnam and Cambodia, and its belief that Israel should continue to exist as a nation State. It

sought greater numbers of | Chilean refugees, and the i prohibition of the presence jof C.I.A. agents in New Zea> ! land. More enthusiasm was genI erated over a call to the Government “to prevent the penetration of foreign military installations.” After considerable discusI sion, the conference agreed “that the New Zealand Government prevent the penetration of further foreign military installations and work towards the closing of those at present existing in New Zealand, and that no i foreign ship or aircraft that normally carries or could carry nuclear weapons be permitted to visit New Zealand or to use New Zealand facilities.” . This was one of the few 1 successes the doves had all morning. The discussions on defence showed clearly that the conservative element of the party completely dominates thinking of defence matters, and that this same element is far more cautious in its approach to international affairs than the party's Left wing.