N.Z.’S DEFENCE NEEDS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1016, 5 July 1930, Page 10

N.Z.’S DEFENCE NEEDS

TWO DEPUTATIONS MEET PRIME MINISTER ABOLITION OF COMPULSION TUB SUX’S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Friday. The need lor the abolition of the compulsory clauses in the Defence Act was stressed upou the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, the Hon. J. G. Cobbe, by a combined deputation from the New Zealand League of Nations Union and the Presbyterian Church. The Prime Minister promised earnest consideration of the request and said the Government was still inquiring into ihe reorganisation of the defence system. The deputation was introduced by Mr. W. K. Barnard (Labour —Napier). The Rev. Dr. J. Gibb, chairman of the Public Questions Committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly and Dominion president of the League of Nations Union, said the deputation was not one of pacifists. The Presbyterian General Assembly had passed a motion approving the abolition of compulsory training and advocating disarmament. The League of Nations Union also had taken this view at its last conference. New Zealand was the sole country adhering to the antiquated system. The Rev. R. S. Watson said tlie Church took the view that the most serious social problem was war and all possible should be done to get it out of the body politic. In this the Church of God would be failing if it did not take the lead. The Church was out for moral disarmament and believed that the compulsory system was harmful to the youth of New Zealand, not in the ordinary sense of bad language, etc., but in a bigger sense, in that it brought them under the sway of the war machine and operated against the international moral disarmament. Churchmen were often asked what they would replace the system with, but that was a task for experts. PRESBYTERIAN INTEREST The Rev. F. H. Wilkinson said the Presbyterian Church’s interest in the question was purely religious. The public view of war was altering and the Christian conscience regarded the preparation for war as abhorrent. The Stale should keep abreast of public feeling and New Zealand would be unworthy of its traditions as a leader in social and moral reform if it failed to come into line with other parts of tlie Empire. The definite policy ot disarmament to which New Zealand was committed demanded legislative action.

Father Mcßae, representing the League of Nations Union, said any step that New Zealand took in proving to the world the sincerity of her desire for peace was frustrated by the presence of compulsory training. The good that would result from abolition would more than counterbalance the ill-effects. Considering the population of New Zealand, the compulsory force was a no bigger factor in defence than a volunteer | one. It was better to work for the progress of New Zealand than to < build up a little army. Mr. W. Nash (Hutt), also represent- j ing the League of Nations Union, said there was nothing move antagonistic to the league than to state that there was a need to organise military forces in New Zealand. The union felt that compulsory military training was one of the main causes of war. There was not enough revenue in the country to guard New Zealand completely from any invasion. If the Government took out the compulsory clauses it would be making a big contribution to world peace. Mr. Forbes said lie recognised that the deputation looked at the question from the broad view. Compulsory training whs brought in in 1909 to make up for the failure of the volunteer organisation and New Zealand felt it had a duty to the Motherland. Since then we had experienced war and its consequences and further war was not desired by anyone. Howi ever, at present a certain amount of | defence was necessary and opinions | differed on how much. The question ;to be decided by the Government in J fulfilling its obligations to the Empire was whether defence could be main- ; t.ained by the abolition of compulsion j as the deputation suggested it could. The question was still under consideration by the Government and the representations would receive all attention. New Zealand had no desire to be hypocritical in her attitude toward the League of Nations. SECOND DEPUTATION

A deputation representing the National Peace Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand No More War Movement, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the Society of Friends, the Trades and Labour Council, and the New Zealand Labour Party was introduced to the Prime Minister earlier in the day by Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour —Christchurch East) asking for the abolition of compulsory training also. “I want to say that I feel as you do in my detestation of war,” Mr. Forbes replied. “We have seen war under modern conditions and know of its consequence; men who were maimed and ruined in health and men who went out and did not return. We also know that more destroying agencies have been devised and another war would be worse than the last. It is entirely against human nature to encourage war, but it is impossible to arrive at absolute security against it with the affairs of the world as they are at the present time; and until we can say we are secure it is necessary to maintain the minimum of defence consistent with national safety.” There was a difference of opinion regarding the minimum of defence necessary, Mr. Forbes continued. The National League of Defence considered that the country should do more than it was doing and on the other hand there were people who believed that the country should have no defence whatever. They were imbued with the idea that all matters of international difference could be dealt with by reason and argument. He did not think that they had arrived at the stage where they could turn the other cheek. Man was a very pugilistic being, and irrespective of all consequences would not sacrifice his own or his nation’s honour without putting up a fight. INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIPS He was of the opinion that there was a better understanding betweem nations at the present time than ever beforehand under those circumstances and in view of the present financial position of the country, the Govern inent felt justified in making consid erable reductions ia the system of de fence. He believed that they could do that without imperilling the safety of the country, and he also believed that

they were acting in a world-wide move ment. When the Territorial Act was intro duced in 1909, said Mr. Forbes, he was in the House and knew what the feel ing was then. They had had an ele ment before them then that was not heard of now. That was what was known as the “Yellow Peril.” It was considered that New Zealand, as one of the countries in the Pacific, was in danger from the races ac-oss the ocean. He had been interested to hear wha? had been said by the members of the deputation, and he could promise them that their representations would receive serious consideration from the Government when the question of the measure of defence necessary for the country was being decided. “I will make a statement later regarding what the Government decides to do,” he concluded.