DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23537, 15 January 1942, Page 6

DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

TERRITORIAL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS EVIDENCE BY WIFE OF A MINISTER’S SECRETARY (P.A.) PALMERSTON N.. Jan. 14. A disclosure halfway through the case that the reservist who was being appealed for was a private secretary of the Hon. R. Semple was made during the hearing by the Manpower Committee to-day of an appeal by Mrs J. M. Quirke against the calling up of her husband under territorial mobilisation, on the grounds of status and hardship. The appellant, whose address was given in the papers before the committee as Manakau, appeared personally. She gave evidence that the reservist was a married man with one child. Under these circumstances, she claimed, as a married man he had been wrongly called up. Examined by Mr H. J. Worthington, the Crown representative, appellant said that she married after May 1, 1940, her husband later being called in a territorial ballot and doing his training in January, February, and March last. The child was born since. Mr Worthington explained to the committee that the reservist in these circumstances was correctly deemed to be a single man so far as territorial service was concerned, but because of the notification to the Director of Manpower of the birth of the child he would be transferred to the Second Division of the Reserve, and would thus be called in the overseas ballot in the class of married men with one child. The reservist had rightly been included in the mobilisation order for territorials. The appellant then advanced the ground of hardship, saving that she and the child were not able to live on the allowance from her husband’s territorial pay. She had no objection to her husband entering camp with married men when they wore called up. Asked by Mr Worthington what her husband's occupation was, she replied: He is a private secretary. Mr Worthington: Who to? Appellant; Mr Semple. The chairman (Mr G. A. Monk): The Minister for Manpower? Appellant; The Minister for Railways. “Does your husband know you are making this application, and is ho agreeable to it?” asked Mr Worthington. Appellant; Yes. At the request of the committee the appellant wrote down the particulars of her husband’s income and their outgoings. Mr Worthington told the appellant that he did not see why she should continue paying £3 weekly for a flat, and suggested that she should come to Palmerston North to live. The appellant; Are flats cheaper there? Mr W. G. Black (a member of the committee): I am surprised that you would be unable to manage on the £3 13s 6d weekly you would get from your husband’s pay. How do you think other womon manage on that? The appellant; I have no idea. Mr Black: Didn’t you discuss the position with your husband before you married? Didn’t you know he would bo liable for territorial service? The appellant: Yes. Mr Black; Now you are asking the committee to relieve you on the score of financial hardship? The appellant; Yes. Questioned by Mr Monk, the appellant said she had been cognisant of the fact when she had married that her husband was liable for service as a single man. Mr Monk; What circumstances have arisen to make you now say he should be in the Second Division? The appellant: The child. Mr Monk: Do you think that should apply to all married couples? The appellant; Yes. Mr Monk: Where would you draw the line between single men and married men? Do you think they should be posted to the second division on the birth of a child? The appellant; Yes. Mr Monk: Wo have no jurisdiction ovjer that. That is fixed by the regulations. Mr Black suggested to the appellant that if her idea were given effect to it would leave a loophole for thousands of men to evade service if they wanted to. There was no further comment. Mr Monk, after consulting the other two members of the committee, announced that the appeal was dismissed.