MANPOWER AND APPEALS

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23807, 28 November 1942, Page 4

MANPOWER AND APPEALS

LONG DISCUSSION AT R.S.A. CONFERENCE SEVEN RESOLUTIONS PASSED Numerous aspects of manpower and appeal board procedure were considered in a discussion of about three and a half hours last evening at a conference in Christchurch of Canterbury branches and sub-branches of the Returned Services’ Association. Seven major resolutions on the subjects were carried. The resolutions passed by the meeting were:— “That only evidence on oath be considered by armed forces appeal boards, and anything in writing by persons who are not present when appeals are dealt with should be disregarded.” “That at least one member of the Returned Services' Association should be a member of each armed forces appeal board.” “That evidence placed by primary production committees before appeal boards in the form of advice be in future given by evidence on oath, and the witness representing the committee be subjected to cross-examination.” "That at least seven days beforehand the date and time of appeals be published in the local newspapers, stating the names and occupations of the appellants." “That this .association strongly protests against the sending of married men with families overseas until the position is reviewed and all single men and married men without children, mobilised or to be mobilised, have left these shores. We suggest that all appeals and medical gradings be reviewed, so that every fit man without children be compelled to do his full share of military duty. We are satisfied that too many fit men In civil life are escaping service, while married men with children are made to serve.” “That ithis meeting protests against persons of military age not serving in the forces sitting on military tribunals or primary production committees.” “That headquarters be advised that in the opinion of this meeting the problem of manpower and rehabilitation would be largely decreased, especially in the case of young servicemen of 18 to 21, if servicemen were required to undergo in camp only six to eight months’ training, or some such approximate period as may be determined by the Army, to train them thoroughly in their particular branch of the service, and if not then required for overseas service, that they then be demobilised and take up their civil occupations, to be called up again only in the case of an emergency; that in the interim their efficiency be maintained by service in their local Home Guard units, and the Home Guard be reorganised for the inclusion of these men and the maintenance of their efficiency.” “That no man who served overseas in the 1914-18 war be called up in a ballot, and that all men who have so served and who are mobilised, be released if they so desire.” Evidence in Writing Mr D. W. Russell (who presided) emphasised that it was important that evidence submitted to an appeal board should be in writing and in the form of a statutory declaration, so that a person making a false statement would be liable to'prosecution for perjury. He quoted a report in the newspaper that day of a case where a worker had challenged evidence given by an employer as incorrect. A motion that any evidence submitted in writing should be by statutory declaration was put by Mr W. Stark (Kaiapoi), and seconded by Mr Aldridge (Hororata). A number of speakers emphasised that persons submitting statements should bo present for cross-examina-tion. The amendment carried was proposed by Mr J. K. Moloney. Criticism of the constitution of certain appeal boards was expressed during a discussion on the advisability of a separate board for North Canterbury (a motion to this effect being lost). Mr Moloney said that in Christchurch there were two appeal boards without returned soldiers as members. The secretary of one was a man of military age, appealed for; the Crown representative of the National Service Department had been appealed for and released from camp, and the chairmen of the other board was also of military ag,c. He thought it an injustice that men who had not served in 1914-18 were in a position to interrogate men of good bona tides asking for relief. The constitution of primary production committees and their recommendations to appeal boards were also debated, some of the delegates alleging that members of some committees used their position to retain their sons on the farms, and that there had been a considerable amount of bad feeling. Mr G. J. Walker (South Canterbury) said that some committee members were "pulling strings behind the scenes” and practically setting themselves .up as judges on the appeals. Mr G. Abbott (Cheviot) said that the committees gave careful consideration to cases on which ‘their advice was sought, and reports could also be made where there was thought to be injustice. Many speakers also criticised the calling up of married men with families. Mr Moloney said that he regarded it as a terrible state when married men with families of four, five, and six were called up and sent overseas, involving the disintegration of family life, while many young men sheltered behind reserved industries—and many were not genuine workers. Towards the conclusion of the discussion the conference decided that it should meet again in three months.