What the M.P.s were saying Community service: should it be compulsory?

Press, 17 July 1978, Page 2

What the M.P.s were saying Community service: should it be compulsory?

From

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Legislation which would provide a background for young persons to be trained in community work gave back-benchera on both sides last week the chance to show a degree of common ground which has been noticeably lacking in other aspects of politics.

On Wednesday Mr D. F. Quigley (National, Rangiora) introduced his own measure, the Community Service Bill, aimed at involving youth groups and individuals in what has been called the “danger age” in community activities. Among those who supported the idea was Mr C. R. Marshall (Labour, Wanganui).

Mr E. G. Latter (National, Marlborough), bench-mate of the mover, put things in perspective when he described Mr Quigley as “working away steadily for more than a year. I was interested in the breadth of his research. He has had correspondence, legislation and ideas from Britain, the United States, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and elsewhere.” Mr Marshall said that the difficulty would be to get hold of the people who would gain most from the scheme Training value “Compulsion is the easiest way to get everybody involved,” Mr Latter said. “The member for Rangiora could favour compulsion because he had first-hand knowledge in his youth of compulsory military training — I do not mean in a military way, but in seeing the value of citizen training. He was, in fact, the first compulsory military service trainee in Canterbury to be commissioned.

“He accepts that full-scale military training is not in the scope of this legislation; he specifically ruled it out in his bill. But he would have liked compulsory community service, and it is my regret that the bill is not still channelled that way. That is what the Dominion conference of the Returned Ser-

vices Association has been recommending for the last three years, and certainly it would get my total support.” Mr Latter regarded Mr Quigley’s bill as a valuable compromise, “became it attempts to lead New Zealand in the right way, where you can say, not ‘What is the community goin; t_i do for me?’ But ‘what am I going to do for the community'?” He drew attention to clause 3 (3) of the bill, which rules out any military training and any use of firearms, commenting: “If we are to train young people in useful arts I believe that safety precautions in the use of firearms and in the use and recognition of explosives would be valuable. I would not like to see this blanked right out.” Tax rebate carrot

Miss C. E. Dewe (Nat., Lyttelton) said that Mr Latter’s question, “What am I going to do for the community?” was not the complete story. Mr Quigley was realistic when offering his “carrot” of a tax rebate for people engaged in community activities.

“It is a pity this has to be so,” Miss Dewe said. “However, I compliment him for approaching the matter with his feet on the ground. The scheme has a very wide coverage in the areas in which the member considers the work should be done. The community service scheme, when established, should attract both young men and young women, because of what it can provide for them.” Miss Dewe said that clause 4 of the bill stated that a community service committee might be established at the request of a local authority. “It is possible in a city such as Christchurch, which has more than one local authority, that one authority might see the desirability of establishing a committee. Does it have the power to overrule the objections of the other authorities to establish one of the committees for which they might be called upon to

share some of the costs (until the end of the year, when they are refunded by the Government)?”

Industrial relations

When Mr A. J. Faulkner (Lab., Roskill) introduced a private measure on industrial relations, Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) expressed himself forcibly on the Government’s reception of it. “The members opposite cannot bring themselves to say that this is a good piece of legislation, is timely, is helpful, and . should be adopted,” Sir Basil said. “The Minister (Mr Gordon) was at great pains to find fault with it. He made a lot of noise, but gave no constructive criticism . . .”

The bill was designed to assist in an area where the Government had demonstrated time and time again its complete failure to understand the basic principles of industrial relations, Sir Basil said. Members opposite asserted that everything suggested and outlined in the bill could already be done, but this was not so. “Government members say that this amendment is not needed to strengthen the Department of Labour,” Sir Basil said. “However, the Planning Council, in its paper ‘Working Together,’ says it would like to see a strengthening of the Labour Department’s manpower resources. The council considers desirable the principles set out in the bill before the House.”

Electoral amendment The Government would be responsible for making sure voters were on the roll, if the Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2), introduced by Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) became law. Actually there is little chance of this, though the bill will get a second-reading debate on Wednesday, after which it could well be relegated. The introduction of the bill last Tuesday produced a lively debate on a topical

subject. Winding It up, Mr Connelly thanked members an both sides, and expressed the hope that it had given the Government an opportunity to think again on this important issue.

“I was surprised at the virulence, even the electoral fear, with which the Government has opposed the bill,” Mr Connelly said. “The Government has

shown an unhealthy reluctance by opposing the provis sion that could make a clean electoral roll. Why is the Government afraid of a clean electoral roll in an election year? “What does the Government have to hide? The bill will strengthen Parliamentary democracy. That is an important concept when Parliamentary democracy throughout the world is under attack from so many quarters . . . Only a Government that feared the wrath of the electors would refuse to do that,” Mr Connelly said.