
New Zealand Media Proposes Compulsory Military Training
Tom Peters, Socialist Equality Group
5 May 2025
On April 25, the New Zealand Herald marked Anzac Day—the annual militarist holiday that celebrates the country's participation in World War I—by publishing an article by right-wing commentator Matthew Hooton calling for the reintroduction of compulsory military training (CMT) for young people.
Pointing to the far-right government's recent commitment to double military spending from 1 to 2 percent of gross domestic product, Hooton said New Zealand's allies—Australia, the US and the NATO imperialist powers—would expect it to be raised to 3 percent of GDP. This will be paid for with even deeper cuts to hospitals, public education and other essential services that workers rely on.
'If New Zealand really plans to spend billions more on defence, why not invest it in universal military training,' Hooton declared. He said this would teach young people 'critical skills' and allow the country to 'better respond to humanitarian crises in the Pacific' and take part in 'peacekeeping' operations around the world. It would also 'help with nation-building and social cohesion in an age of social-media addiction and political polarisation.'
Hooton's call for conscription was echoed by talkback radio hosts on Newstalk ZB, who presented it as a means to address unemployment and help 'directionless' young people. At the end of last year, with the country in recession and corporations slashing jobs, 13.2 percent of under-25-year-olds were not in employment, education or training.
All of this is a smokescreen. The real purpose of CMT, as with the record increase in military spending, is to prepare for imperialist war to redivide the world. The ruling class is seeking to instil young people with nationalism and unquestioning obedience to authority, so they can be used as cannon fodder.
Governments in the US and across Europe, which are pumping trillions of dollars into the war against Russia over Ukraine and Israel's genocide in Gaza, are also actively discussing how to bring back the draft.
As a minor imperialist power, New Zealand is a member of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance and has sent military personnel to Britain to help train Ukrainian conscripts, and to the Middle East to assist in the US bombing of Yemen.
New Zealand is also integrated into the far-advanced US war plans targeting China, which are accelerating alongside the Trump administration's devastating trade warfare. The government's recent Defence Capability Plan made clear that the increased military spending is aimed against China.
Some form of CMT existed for young men during most of the 20th century in New Zealand. It played a major role in the militarisation of society in the lead-up to the First World War, in which about 100,000 New Zealanders served in the armed forces, almost one tenth of the population at the time. More than 16,600 were killed and 41,317 wounded.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon recently glorified New Zealand's participation in the disastrous 1915 British invasion of Gallipoli in WWI, telling a media conference on May 4 that the troops went 'to fight for the Kiwi way of life that we all enjoy today.' In fact, New Zealand's ruling class joined the war to defend the British Empire and to seize more colonies in the Pacific.
CMT was abolished with the repeal of the Military Service Act in 1973. This followed mass protests against New Zealand's involvement in the US imperialist war in Vietnam.
Now, with an even more catastrophic war being prepared involving nuclear-armed powers, the ruling class is seeking to overcome deeply ingrained opposition to war and militarism in the population.
This is the purpose of Hooton's column and the broader media propaganda campaign, which was likely coordinated with the government. Hooton is well-connected, having been employed as an advisor to the conservative National Party and the far-right ACT Party, which are both in the coalition government.
A frothing militarist, Hooton regularly paints China as a threat to New Zealand's interests. He recently suggested that special forces be deployed to invade the Cook Islands and overturn its government's economic agreements with China.
Hooton is also one of New Zealand's most vehement supporters of the Zionist regime in Israel and has repeatedly smeared opponents of the Gaza genocide as antisemitic supporters of terrorism.
When the New Zealand Herald boosted Hooton's call for conscription on Facebook, the response was divided. While many supporters of the government and the military commented in favour of the idea, Hooton was angrily denounced by hundreds of people.
Terri wrote: 'Absolutely not. We [are] not making human shields for [Prime Minister] Luxon's mates.'
Toni similarly said: 'Heck no, we don't need to be sending our youth off to fight billionaires wars.' Merania called the idea 'stupid,' adding that 'war only feeds the rich.'
Ed commented: 'We are on the brink of ww3. That's why they want to start training up the kiddos again not for any other bs reason.'
Some pointed to the hypocrisy of the government and its supporters claiming to care about young people while imposing brutal austerity measures, including cuts to school and university funding.
Buster asked: 'Why should we lay down our lives for our crappiest government ever, who only want to take from the people?' Ivy wrote: 'What has this country done [for] us besides causing us stress from the high cost of living and lack of jobs. Not worth fighting for.'
Karen stated: 'No way am I going to let my sons become cannon fodder for fascist, illegal conflicts overseas sent by gutless, self serving, corrupt politicians. NO WAY.'
These anti-war sentiments are widely shared, as seen at the protests against the Gaza genocide. One survey last year found that 68 percent of New Zealand respondents opposed greater spending on the armed forces, while only 28 percent said it should increase.
Yet this sentiment finds no expression in the capitalist political establishment. The opposition Labour Party fully supports the government's military build-up. The last Labour-led government, which included the Green Party, strengthened New Zealand's alliance with the US. Previous Labour governments have also sent troops to support the illegal and barbaric US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The only way to stop the world from descending into barbarism is through revolutionary struggle to abolish the capitalist system. The urgent task is to build socialist parties, in New Zealand and in all countries, as part of the world Trotskyist movement, to provide political leadership for the fight against war, fascism and mass poverty.
This was the central message of the International May Day Online Rally hosted by the World Socialist Web Site last weekend, which featured speakers from the Socialist Equality Parties around the world and the Socialist Equality Group (SEG) in New Zealand. We urge those who agree with this perspective to contact the SEG today.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
38 minutes ago
- Scoop
Systemic Change Crucial So That All Mokopuna Māori Thrive
In light of a new report published today about outcomes for mokopuna Māori and whānau in the oranga tamariki system, the Chief Children's Commissioner is emphasising that all mokopuna Māori have the right to grow up safe and well with their whānau. 'The new report published today by my colleagues Aroturuki Tamariki | Independent Children's Monitor shows the urgent need for systemic change at a collective level, so that all mokopuna Māori can thrive. 'I want to see all agencies across the oranga tamariki system working better together to address the inequities highlighted in this report so that all mokopuna Māori are flourishing in their lives, in the care of their whānau. The State has duties to uphold the rights of mokopuna Māori as tangata whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This new report shows that the system as a whole is still falling short of this, and that there are intergenerational impacts playing out right now. 'I meet frequently with whānau Māori and their mokopuna, iwi and hapū across the motu. They tell me it is whānau-led, iwi, hapū and kaupapa Māori approaches that are helping to strengthen whānau, keep mokopuna safe, and growing continued pathways to mana motuhake – self determination. The findings of this report back this up,' says Dr Achmad. The Chief Children's Commissioner notes that the report shows that good progress can be made where there is genuine partnership between Māori and State agencies that keeps mokopuna and whānau central, along with the sharing of data and resources. 'I want to see these approaches strengthened and expanded so they deliver enduring wraparound services and supports for all mokopuna and whānau who need them. A stronger focus on by Māori for Māori prevention and early intervention is essential. These approaches will improve outcomes so that all mokopuna Māori grow up safe and well in the care of their whānau, connected to their whakapapa.' She says safety concerns about mokopuna must be responded to appropriately and quickly, but that with almost half of Reports of Concern leading to no further action, the report shows this isn't happening. 'I want to see mokopuna Māori needs being met early, through Māori-led approaches working closely with whānau. These ways of working need to be better supported by the oranga tamariki system – the report highlights that this leads to the best outcomes for whānau and mokopuna. 'I am deeply concerned the report shows mokopuna Māori aged 10-17 are more likely to be prosecuted than non-Māori, and less likely to be referred by Police to alternative action or given warnings. The system must urgently stop criminalising the unmet care and protection needs of mokopuna Māori. 'Nearly 40 years have passed since the publication of Pūao-te-āta-tū. This new report shows that the system is still not working as it should be for whānau Māori and their mokopuna. The crucial change that is required must collectively meet the aspirations of whānau and mokopuna Māori,' says Dr Achmad.


Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Speech: Hon Andrew Hoggard To Federated Farmers At Fieldays
ACT MP Hon Andrew Hoggard Federated Farmers Rural Advocacy Hub Speaking Engagement Wednesday 11 June, 11:30 am Good morning, everyone. It's great to be back, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I'd like to start by acknowledging the significant effort that's gone into organising this year's Fieldays Rural Advocacy Hub. These events don't happen without a lot of hard work behind the scenes, and it shows. I also want to acknowledge Federated Farmers and the many other farmer-led organisations who work tirelessly to support and advocate for the sector. As a dairy farmer and a former President of Federated Farmers, I know firsthand how important your work is. Whether it's in the regions or on the national stage, you give voice to rural communities, bring practical solutions to the table, and stand up for the interests of farmers and growers across New Zealand. This Government is firmly committed to backing you—by reducing costs, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening frontline support. When I spoke at Fieldays last year, interest rates were a massive challenge for rural New Zealand. Make no mistake, that was Wellington's fault. It was the hangover from a Labour-led pandemic response that pumped out easy money without a productivity boost to match. Now we've reined in waste, got inflation back to the target range, and farmers are finally seeing real interest rates relief. We need to do more to cut the waste in Wellington, because the less resource the Government sucks up, the more is left over for people like you out in the real world trying to grow things. Over the past year, we've made real progress on red tape. We've started delivering on our promise to fix the resource management system and reduce the regulatory burden. Amending intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules. Pausing the rollout of freshwater farm plans while we make them more practical and affordable, and halting the identification of new Significant Natural Areas. Right now, we're consulting on a package of proposals aimed at streamlining or removing regulations that are holding the primary sector back. Most critically, we are consulting on changes to the NPS Freshwater 2020. There are several options being put forward. Now, if I remove my Minister hat and put on my ACT Party hat, we need to be bold. By that I mean Te Mana o te Wai needs to go. Worrying about the Paris Accord, whilst still a concern, is a sideshow compared to the hard calls we need to make with regards to RMA reform and the NPS Freshwater. Make no mistake, as a Party we have no interest in taxing the most carbon efficient farmers in the world, having methane targets far in excess of what is needed to play our part, sending billions offshore to be carbon neutral, or turning the lights off in homes or businesses through misguided energy policies. But if you ask me what area of policy scares me the most for the future of New Zealand farming, it is resource management and freshwater policy. Te Mana o te Wai has caused confusion amongst councils, and I see that if left in place its current trajectory will likely lead towards co-governance for regional councils, not just in policy but consenting as well, and policies that are based on vague spiritual concepts, not clear and simple water science balanced with societal needs. This debate will undoubtedly be noisy, but farming groups need to advocate strongly for clear unambiguous language in the NPS, individual farmers need to submit on what they are seeing and the stress this concept has caused many of them with regards to consenting. At the Treaty Principles Bill second reading debate many coalition party MPs stated that the Bill was too general, too broad-brushed, and that we should just focus on ensuring that we don't have unclear language and vague concepts in future bills and policies. Well I would suggest that this NPS Freshwater is a good test for those statements. You will see plenty of MPs here for the next few days playing farmer dress up, make sure you let them know you expect them to keep their word. Now, while I'm being a staunch ACT MP I also want to give a shout out to the Regulatory Standards Bill, for many of you undoubtedly are thinking, why should I care about something that sounds that boring. Real simple. If this Bill had been in place during my Feds presidency it would have made the job so much easier, as it would have highlighted some of the more impractical and stupid regulations that were dreamed up. Even if it didn't make the politicians think twice, at least the system would have shone a spotlight on the issues. We are so lucky that Bernadette Hunt got on the Hosking show and was able to show up some of the more daft parts of the winter grazing regs and they got changed within days, but they shouldn't have got that far. That's what the Regulatory Standards Bill will hopefully show up. But also, government doesn't just take away your hard-earned dollars through its fiscal policies. It also can take away your property rights through its regulatory policies, so this Bill will ensure that if those property rights are taken away then compensation should be forthcoming. This whole concept has complete distaste from the Left, and some lukewarm reception from everyone else but ACT. So, if more protection for property rights is something you want to see, make sure you put your case forward for it. Okay, back to being a Minister, if I can just highlight some of the other Government work that is going on that is relevant for farming. In the health and safety space, we've got Brooke van Velden leading reforms to get rid of over compliance, reduce paperwork, and make WorkSafe helpful, not harmful. I'm especially pleased about her work to protect landowners from liability when they allow recreational activities like horse trekking, hunting, or hiking on their land. It's about a shift from fear to freedom, opening up land for maximum enjoyment and enhancing the Kiwi way of life. We're also keen to empower farmers on the conservation front. I believe farmers are natural environmentalists. We live off the land, so we have every incentive to care for it. Many of us work to maintain stands of native bush or wetland on our land. For too long, the approach has been to punish this work, with councils looking at your land and saying, ' that looks pretty, in fact that natural area looks 'significant' and you're going to lose your property rights over that. ' It's all stick and no carrot. I think farmers deserve real credit for their contributions to biodiversity, and I'll have more to say about that at the Beef + Lamb stall tomorrow. In this year's Budget, we announced a 20% funding increase to tackle the spread of wilding pines—a major win for our landscapes and productive land. Another important change in this year's Budget is Investment Boost—a major new tax incentive to encourage business investment, support economic growth, and lift wages. If you're a farmer, tradie, manufacturer, or run any business, this matters to you. When you invest in new equipment, machinery, tools, vehicles, or technology—you'll now be able to deduct 20% of that cost immediately from your taxable income. It's a straightforward way to help reduce your tax bill and support decisions that lift productivity and grow your business. To put it simply, we're backing your success. We want to see a thriving primary sector that's not weighed down by complexity, but supported to innovate, grow, and lead. I want to thank Federated Farmers, and many of you here, for the constructive role you've played in helping shape these changes. Your feedback is vital to making sure the final rules are workable, sensible, and fit for purpose. Thank you again for the chance to be here, and for everything you do to keep this sector moving forward. All the best for a successful and enjoyable Fieldays. Thank you.


The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
With so many parties ‘ruling out' working with other parties, is MMP losing its way?
Part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of the worst excesses of the political executive. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. There has been a lot of 'ruling out' going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, Act's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party. Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own, indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori. And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to 'completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing'. Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago. Under the old 'first past the post' system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice. Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary. Government by decree By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party that might be able to govern with either major player. In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an ' elected dictatorship ', part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill. Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed – that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy – the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that. It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one. But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from Act (the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation) and NZ First (tax breaks for heated tobacco products). Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes Act and NZ First have managed to secure will erode – at least in some quarters – faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements. The centre cannot hold Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/Act/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left. In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate 'commonsense' party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now. In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and Act may be small, but they are not minor. In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase. For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar. The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand – lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies – needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.