IReview of Reviews, 1/9/13. 



675 



THE DEFENCE ACT IN AUSTRALIA. 



During- the six months I have been in 

 Australia 1 have endeavoured to follow 

 as closely as possible the working of the 

 Defence Act. My democratic upbring- 

 ing and habit of thought would natur- 

 ally cause me to take an antagonistic 

 view of any scheme which compels an 

 unwilling man to bear arms, especially 

 -when he has conscientious objections to 

 militarism in every form. I have tried, 

 I think successfully, to put my natural 

 inclinations entirely on one side, and to 

 •view the whole question impartially. 

 It is, however, with considerable hesi- 

 tancy that I set down my conclusions on 

 paper. After all, it is a matter for Aus- 

 tralians to decide upon, and it is diffi- 

 cult for a newcomer to look at things 

 from their point of view. 



AN UNDISCUSSED MEASURE. 



I have not been able to hnd out yet 



whether the citizens of Australia, as a 



whole, are ui favour of the Act or not. I 



have discovered, though, that very few 



By HENRY STEAD. 



the proposals of the United .Service 

 League at home too closely for anyone 

 to believe that it was evolved locally. 



" KEEN AS MUSTARD." 

 One must discount to some extent 

 the enthusiastic declarations as to its 

 universal popularity on the one side, 

 and the confident assertions about the 

 growing opposition to it on the other. 

 Those in favour of the Act state that the 

 boys are " keen as mustard," but declare 

 it impossible to have a clause allowing 

 for the exemption of the conscientious 

 objector, because it would be abused by 

 the many who do not want to train ! 

 On the other hand those opposed to the 

 measure point to the 13,000 or more pro- 

 secutions which have been instituted as 

 evidence of the strong opposition to the 

 compulsory clauses. Actually, though, 

 the proportion is not any higher than 

 under the Education Acts. 



A FREE COUNTRY. 

 Certain things are obviously bound 



people realise quite what it is or may lead to happen which the framers of the Bill, 



to. It is surprising that here, where so or, perhaps I should say those who 



many matters are laid before the people passed it, did not for a moment foresee, 



in the form of referenda, this thing, which Unless some provision is made for the 



touches every person living in the land, true conscientious objector he will have 



has never been voted on directly. Not to leave the country. There can be no 



only was it never submitted to the elec- 

 tors in the form of a referendum, it has 

 never even been discussed at the hust- 

 ings, because both political parties were 

 committed to it, and it was a plank in 

 both platforms. 



WHO FRAMED IT ? 



doubt about that whatever. Some who 

 have been prosecuted for conscience' sake 

 are already preparing to do so. That is 

 obviously bad for Australia, and no 

 amount of blustering that we don't want 

 those who are not prepared to defend 

 their country will get over the fact that 

 . ,1 .1 r A . 1- in a freedom-loving Empire like ours 



Actually, therefore, Australians as a ,^^,^^^.^1^^ ^^ ^he only Dominion which is 



not really free. Some formula ought to 

 be found to meet the case. 



whole have had no opportunity whatever 

 of either approving or disapproving of 

 the Act, and the policy which produced 

 it. One cannot blind oneself to the fact 

 that whilst the Liberal Party claims the 

 introduction of the measure, and the 



TWO CLASSES OF RECRUITS, 

 x^nother unexpected thing is that in a 

 democracy such as ours j^referential 



Labour Party takes credit to itself for treatment is being shown to the boys of 



making it law, the Act is not the work well-to-do parents. These boys do not 



of either. It resembles that in force in attend the State schools, and drill is 



New Zealand, that in South Africa, and done by them in the school grounds as 



