CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 181, 2 August 1929, Page 5

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

AN AMENDING BILL. SECOND READING DEBATE. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The second reading of the Defence Amendment Bill was moved in the House to-day by Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour —Auckland Suburbs). Mr. Mason said the bill dealt with conscientious objectors, and he asked the House to deal seriously with, the question. He believed the bill only made the law clear as Parliament had intended it in the Defence Amendment Act, 1912, and that the trouble that had existed in the past had been due to a ivrong interpretation of the law. The bill actually made no change in the law. He recognised that the Government intended to deal with the matter in another way, by exempting divinity students, but he did not see why divinity students should be singled out for special treatment. It should be a case of conscience and nothing else, and the particular Church to which the applicant belonged should not enter into the matter at all. In regard to provision for non-military service, it was proposed that this phase should be outside the Defence Department altogether. Mr. T. W. McDonald (United —Wairarapa) said he approved the bill in some respects, but was not quite sure of the extent to which it might go. He suggested that the bill should remain in abeyance to give the Government time to look into the matter in the near future. He thought the wishes of the mover would receive sympathetic attention.

Mr. A. Harris (Reform —Waitemata) contended that the bill was simply a repetition of the principle rejected the previous day. He said he would call for a division on the second reading. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour —Napier) denied that the bill was the same in effect as the Compulsory Military Service Repeal Bill. He said it was merely designed to make clearer the duties of magistrates in hearing cases of conscientious objectors. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour—Waimarino) spoke on similar lines. Opposition to the bill was voiced by Mr. T. Makitanara (United —Southern Maori), who said it was designed to support religious hypocrites. Mr. C. L. Carr (Labour —Timaru) appealed to members to try to understand the point of view of the conscientious objector. He warned the House against enforcing the principles of what had previously been termed "Prussianfsm." Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour—Auckland Central) criticised the action of Mr. Harris in suspecting an ulterior motive in the introduction of the bill. Mr. R. A. Wright (Reform —Wellington Suburbs) expressed the opinion that the bill would not help a magistrate in reaching a decision as to the worthiness of a claim for exemption. Mr. J. O'Brien (Labour —Westland) spoke in favour of the bill. The Hon. A. J. Stallworthy. Minister of Health, expressed the opinion that the bill was an honest attempt on the nart of the mover to improve conditions. He admitted that there was need for improvement. Mr. Stallworthys speech \va,s interrupted by the dinner adjournment, and the debate was not concluded.