REFERENDUM MAY BE HELD- Government Rebuffed: Conference Rejects Move For Conscription

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 May 1949, Page 8

REFERENDUM MAY BE HELDGovernment Rebuffed: Conference Rejects Move For Conscription

WELLINGTON, May 24 (P.A.),—The Labour Party Conference was asked by the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) today to give approval to conscription, if the Government considered it necessary, and to include national service in the party’s General Election policy. After a-heated discussion lasting four and a half hours, Mr Fraser intervened to amend his motion to provide for a referendum if conscription were contemplated. Earlier he had said that the Labour caucus thought a referendum was not a suitable way of dealin g with ; the -matter. . . '

The motion, amended to provide for a referendum, was carried by 600 votes to eight. When Mr Fraser moved his original motion, an amendment was moved by Mr A. B. Grant (Christchurch) and seconded by Mr John Roberts (Christchurch) to delete the clause favouring compulsory national service. This amendment (described by Mr .Clyde Carr, M.P., Timaru, as a motion of no-confidence in the Government) was. withdrawn when Mr Fraser amended his motion.

During the discussion Mr F, Langstone, member of Parliament for Roskill, threatened? to resign if the original motion were carried. He said he was the only member of the caucus who had opposed 'the proposal. Other members of the Parliamentary party spoke in favour of the original motion.

Supplied Report The .conference was not open to the press. The following report is from information supplied by the Labour Party. Mr Fraser moved the following motion: — “That the conference approves that full provision be made by the Government for—- “( 1) The adequate and efficient defence of New Zealand, including the Pacific areas necessary to the maintenance of the defence of New Zealand. “(2) The maximum contribution possible to the defence of the British Comnionwealth with which the

destiny of New Zealand is wholly and completely bound up. “Toxvards these ends the conference— “(3)’Requests the Government to use all the resources of the country, including compulsory national service, if the Government, after exploring all possibilities and alternatives, is convinced, that such a measure is essential for the defence and preservation of our people, our country, and our Commonwealth; and

“(4) Considers that these proposals should be placed on the policy platform of the party for the General Election.” (Mr Fraser then made a strong appeal for acceptance of compulsory military service, as published yesterday). ‘‘l come to this conference to ask your opinion and endorsement of the resolution,” said Mr Fraser. “I do not suppose a voice can be raised against, clause one, unless it be by those who believe honestly that they would rather be killed than defend themselves. I appreciate their sincerity and their ideals. I admire them and only wish I could accept their doctrine of non-resistance, if others would only accept it.” Clause two was just a plain statement of fact, said Mr Fraser. Communist Campaign Turning to clauses three and four, Mr Fraser said: “We adopted compulsory service during the war. Is it necessary in peacetime?” Voices, numbering 10 to 15: No. “I think you will have a differentopinion unless the Communist campaign against national service in this country has appealed to you and you have been taken in by it,” replied Mr Fraser. “We want to discuss this matter from the New Zealand point of view and from no other, except insofar as New Zealand is part of the British Commonwealth. If Britain goes down we go down, too.” Mr Fraser said that if an emergency arose, New . Zealand had complete legislation on the Statute Book to deal with it immediately. The Defence Act and the National Service Regulations were still the law and could be operated by the Government but the Government wanted to feel that the people were with it in any step it took. One way of dealing with the matter was by a referendum, which he personally would welcome, said Mr Fraser.

“Don’t cheer too early,” said Mr Fraser, in reply to applause at this point. “I would be glad to lead a campaign for the affirmative on this matter, because I instinctively consider it my duty to do so. I want clear thinking. I recoil from being before the public and having to fight my friends of the Labour movement.” Unity Urged Mr Fraser urged that the Labour Party should be united in the matter. The great majority of his colleagues considered a referendum was an unsuitable way of dealing with the question. What then? The question was whether the country had to have a force of volunteers or compulsory 'training. Officers and men still had to be trained and that might mean delay. The Government must consult the people, If the Labour Party favoured compulsory service., and the National Party also favoured it, that would show the people that their conception was conclusive. •Therefore he suggested placing the matter oh the election platform of, ♦he party so that the people would know what the party and Government stood for. Mr Fraser said the need for compulsory training would be judged by i tkc Government when all the facts were available. He strongly recommended the conference to consider that point. Danger To New Zealand “It is my infiermost conviction that if there is an opportunity to overrun the eWorld—and you have to think of the power of the greatest armed force | in the world stretching from the Rhine to Vladivostock .and from the Arctic to , Shanghai—then this country will be I in danger,” said Mr Fraser. “There are -huge numbers living by war under the war lords in China and that is the force that is on the border of Burma , now. . * ' |' “Do you wonder why there is an r Atlantic Pact?” he asked. “Opr mother , country' is in it and all the countries of r the British Commonwealth and the , West are concerned. . “The. Government must be in a posi- j tioh to act speedily. It is not Labour’s way to ignore anyone and the people are'.entitled to have proposals put be- * fore' theiri for approval or disapproval.” , After referring; to the cost of pro- ‘ tection. the Commonwealth, Mr Fraser < Said: “We should, jhave self-respect and say we will share the burden with

the British people equally.” . . “I am asking you to leave this in the hands of the Government,” said Mr Fraser. “It'will act without hesitation. It is only a matter of time and not of principle. I believe the country has made up its mind and 19 out of 20 people would condemn the Government if it did not make adequate provision in time.” Mr Fraser said that by far the most important part of New Zealand’s defences was in the Pacific Islands and it was there its force must be. “If Shanghai Falls” “If Shanghai falls, as may happen at any time, and if Hong Kong falls too, then there are, thank God, thousands cf miles of water before we are reached, but it is only a matter of time before we are reached,” said Mr Fraser. “No man or woman will fail to do his or her best to defend this country and its high standards and ideals. We must defend the country and the Commonwealth and, if the United Nations should have a police force, we must give assistance.” Mr D. Forsythe (Auckland Carpenters' Union), who seconded his motion, said he did so as a Socialist who had been through the revolution in Southern Russia. Mr Grant then moved his amendment that clause three should be deleted and that in its place words should be inserted reasserting the Labour Party’s opposition to conscription in peace, and reasserting equal conscription of wealth in war. This was seconded by Mr Roberts. -Mr E. A. Napier (Wellington Watersiders) said the conference was beingasked to endorse complete military and industrial service. The Prime Minister had said everything but declare war. Mr Lang Stone said the resolution was politically' unwise, and he had voted

against it in caucus. It would split the Labour movement and would heap coals on the National Party fires. The Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr C. F. Skinner) said the question was simply: “Is New Zealand worth defending?” If New Zealand were strong enough it would never be attacked. Prime Minister's Assurances Replying to Mr G. Stove (Trentham). the Prime Minister at the opening of the afternoon session gave the following assurances: (1) that people with conscientious objections would not be forced to serve; (2) that the Government had no thought of'introducing industrial conscription; (3) that he pledged that' the forces raised would never be used for industrial purposes. Mr M. Moohan, M.P., Petone, a member of the defence committee or caucus, which brought down the recommendation, said no one could accuse him of being a conscriptionist, as iat a previous conference he nad moved for a recommittal of a motion on conscription. The Prime Minister’s motion now before the conference was the unanimous opinion of the committee and ought to be discussed without any heat. It was rp good adopting a negative attitude, because it was the Government’s first duty to arrange for the defence of the country. The amendment moved by Mr Grant would mean that the Government could do nothing until war broke out, said Mr Moohan. He himself had seen a similar thing in the 1914-18 war, when he served in ihe British army and saw people have to face war with neither training nor equipment. He said, it was impossible for 1 the Government to determine the destiny of national defence by negative prepositions. Unionism Compulsory The Prime Minister’s motion asserted > confidence in the Government, said Mr Moohan. There was compulsory unionism to defend trade unions and, if New -Zealand was worth defending, it was everybody’s duty to contribute. Mr P. Blanchfield (president of the Westland Labour Representation Committee) said that oniv blind or intentionally dishonest people today refused to recognise the danger of war.

Mr J. Mathison, M.P., Avon, said that all the Government asked was that the policy already provided for by statute' should be approved if it became necessary. to use it. The Minister of Labour (Mr McLagan) said Britain had decided to maKe adequate preparation, and he asked if it was good enough for New Zealand to wait. The last war was nearly lost before New Zealand troops got there. Hopes never averted a war, said Mr McLagan, nor did Socialist ideals, if other people believed in force. Pacifism was no defence against aggression. He himself still held to the traditional Labour opposition to militarism, but there was nothing like that in the proposition before the conference. Everything the Communist? did in this country was designed to heln their comrades in the same party overseas. ■

“Only With People’s Wish” Mr McLagan said voluntary service would be replaced by national service only with the people’s wish, but he felt that the vast majority of the people wanted adequate national delence, even if compulsory service were necessary to attain that objective. Mr T, H. Davy (Fendalton) opposed the motion, saying. the conference had no right to commit New zea-: land to compulsory military service without a referendum. Mr A. E. Armstrong, M.P., Napier, said that if a more intensive physical culture course was. given to youth it would improve their health. Mr James Roberts, M.L.C., president ■of the party ,said England in 1914 would have had an army as big as the. Kaiser’s if she had adopted the principle of “every citizen a soldier.” Mrs H. Woods (Mcera) said another war was obvious and it was the Government’s responsibility to be prepared. The conditions of warfare had altered with a modern weapon and it was all the more necessary to be prepared. There could be no preparedness if everything was left to the last minute. I Mr Hone Heke Rankin (North Auck--1 land) said the North Auckland Maori people stood behind the Prime Minister. “This country belongs to us and we’re going to defend it,” said Mr Rankin. “Vote Of No-confidence” Mr .Clyde Carr said Mr Grant’s amendment was tantamount to a vote of nc-confidence in the Government . and the Parliamentary Labour Party I Commenting on Mr Langstone’s speech, Mr Carr said that in the event [of a national emergency national organisatiori would be wanted, not dis - organisation. He had full confidence that Mr McLagan and his colleagues could do as good a job again if necessary as they .had done before. The Prime Minister’s proposal meant that the State should have power to deal with an emergency. , i He had been sympathetic to Russia when it was maligned by the j'eactionanes of the West, continued Mi- Carr, but the trouble now was that Russian reactionaries persisted when in the majority of Western democracies there were social democratic Governments, and Communism was menacing these countries. Mr Fraser. Intervenes i At 4.15 pan., after four and a half

hours, the Prince Minister ..intervened to request the conference to accept an amendment, to part 3'Of liis original resolution which would nqwread: “This conference .requests *the,Government to use all the resources of the country essential for the. defence and preservation of our people, our country, and our Commonwealth and, : if resources are not available without compulsory nalicnal service, the Government be requested to obtain the views of the electors on this .question by referendum.” Mr Grant thereupon withdrew his amendment in favour of that of the Prime Minister. Mr T'Taser, replying to the debate, said that the Government would trust the p'epole and "if they found resources were inadequate without compulsory service they would tell the people.. “We want to feel the, people are with us and trust us,” said Mr Fraser. He said the* one point in the- whole debate to which he attached the most im-

portance was the’ necessity for consulting the people and he wanted their full support, if necessary, in a referendum ii and when he had‘to ask the people to defend the country. “Ordinary Electors” Replying to ..Mr Langstone, 'Who asked ‘it youths who might be called for service would have the opportunity of voting, Mr Fraser said ordinary electors would have the vote. Mr Fraser’s Statement . WELLINGTON, May 24 (P.A.).—' The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser), in a statement tonight, said: “If, as a result of the Labour Party conference, the Government decides to conduct a referendum on national service, I will be out leading the'campaign for the affirmative. “Of course,” added Mr Fraser, “the Government will not recommend a referendum unless it is essential, and if it becomes essential it means that the Government must .give its fullest support to the campaign in the affirmative.”

NO DEATH PENALTY: LABOUR PARTY REAFFIRMS POLICY

WELLINGTON, May 24 (P.A,)— The abolition of the death penalty as part of the Labour Party’s policy was reaffirmed by the annual conference of the paryt today. The conference rejected a proposal that a life sentence should be imprisonment for the term of a prisoner’s natural life. A supplied report of the conference said that comparatively short sentences served by some persons sentenced to life imprisonment were the subject of comment. Mrs E. Barrett, of Auckland, said women considered Eric Mateo should not have been released. The Minister of Justice (Mr H. G. R. Mason) said the troubles encountered had nothing to do with the .release of life prisoners. The trouble had been due to short sentences imposed by judges in a humanitarian sense. \

NO AGE LIMITS FOR M.P.’s: PARTY POLICY

WELLINGTON, May 24 (P.A.)..— A proposal that the compulsory retiring age for members of Parliament should be fixed was rejected by the Labour Party conference today on the recommendation of the conference committee.

The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) said that on his energy, initiative and vigour, Mr R. Semple was still one of the youngest of Ministers. Mr Semple said that when he could not do his job he would get out. “My race is not run and while I can fight for my fellow worker and the nation at large I’ll fight,” said Mr Semple. He would apologise to no one for his age.

A suggestion that the portfolios of works and railways should be held by two separate Ministers was rejected by ihe conference. Mr J. C. O'Leary (Lake Pukaki) said his branch believed there should be separate Ministers for these portfolios. Mr Fraser said it had been his 'happy experience that Ministers had always co-operated in any changes. When it had been suggested that Mr Semple might be transferred from the railways portfolio all of the railway organisations had demanded his retention.