TO ABOLISH DEFENCE?

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 81, 5 April 1923, Page 7

TO ABOLISH DEFENCE?

NEW ZEALAND LABOUR PARTY'S

INTENTION

A COMPARISON WITH AUSTRALIA

Acocrdinjr to a Press Association report from Christchurch, published to-day, the conference of the New Zealand Labour Party yesterday carried a motion by Mr. R. Semple, resolving forthwith to embark upon an active campaign demanding the repeal of the Defence Act. Apparently this step was taken in pursuance of clause, 8 of the constitution of tlie party, which reads : "The repeal o{ the Military Service Act and the Defence Act. The repeal of all provisions in the War Regulations Act and its amendments that interfere with civil and industrial liberties." .The Timaru branch of the Labour Party had a remit on the agenda paper of the conference .providing that \ the party should adopt the Volunteer system •of defence, but the supplied reports do not mention whether this remit.was even considered.

The -New Zealand Party's attitude to defence differs from that of the Australian Labour Party, which . favours the adoption of at least a voluntary system. The constitution of the New Zealand party contains no reference to the necessity of having a defence force, whereas the platform of the Australian Labour Party, as adopted at the Brisbane conference in 1921, recognises this need, but sugsests an amendment of the Australian Defence Act, deleting- all clauses relating to "compulsory" training and service. This would appear to be in accord with the A.L.P.'s ideal of the "cultivation of an Australian sentiment, the maintenance of a White Australia, the development in Australia, of an enlightened and self-reliant community; and complete Australian self-government as a British community." Unlike the Australian Labour Party's platform, the constitution of the New Zealand party is international in its ecope. and leaders of the movement in New Zealand make no secret of the fact that they are internationalists.

_ That the Australian Labour Party believes in havinjr some system of defence is shown by a reference to a plank in its platform proposing the limitation .of professional soldiers to "necessary instruction and administrative and working staff," and "recognition of nrinciple of election of qualified candidates as officers." Moreover, the. Australian party believes that, on completion of training, citizens should be allowed to letain arms delivered to them during training, and urges that Defence Acts should be renewed annually, as in England.

It will thus be seen that there is a wide difference between the platforms of the Australian and New Zealand' Labour Parties on' the important question of defence—that one recognises the principle of having some defensive force, the other uroposes vthe scrappinsr of all legislation on the matter, but suggests nothing to take its place.