TRAINING BILL OPPOSED

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25933, 13 October 1949, Page 6

TRAINING BILL OPPOSED

MR T. BLOODWORTH’S OPINIONS

(New Zealand Press Association.) WELLINGTON. October 12. Though he favoured .conscription in war time, he protested against compulsory militarv training in peace •time for a limited group of people while the rest of the community contributed little or nothing towards the country’s defence,” said Mr T. Bloodworth (Auckland) in the Legislative Council to-day. “I am not a Communist, a fellowtraveller, a disgruntled politician, a nitwit, or a totalitarian,” said Mr Bloodworth. “I just have not changed my mind about the need for compulsory military training in peace time.”

Mr Bloodworth criticised the Military Training Bill on the following grounds: provision for the exemption of ministers of religion and members of religious orders; representation for applicants before the postponement committee for exemption from or postponement of service; inconsistency of the ban on liquor in training establishments in the face of practical circumstances and the dangerous precedent that was established by section 57, requiring, except in special circumstances, that the onus of proof of innocence of an offence against that part of the act be on defendant. What would happen to a trainee in the Navy if the King sent a signal to splice the mainbrace? asked Mr Bloodworth.

Sir William Perry (Wellington): He would have lime juice. Sir William Perry spoke strongly in favour of the bill. He said adequate provision was made for conscientious objectors, although he agreed with Mr Bloodworth that it was extremely difficult for a layman to judge another’s true conscience.

Mr J. T. Paul (Wellington) expressed a fear that “the military mind" might try to dominate democracy, but supported the bill generally, as did Mr R. Eddy (Wellington), whose main concern was the possible effect of the liquor restrictions in training establishments on those who in civilian life would normally be entitled to liquor.