PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2812, 1 July 1916, Page 10

PARLIAMENT

THE ESTIMATES

DEFENCE VOTES UNDER REVIEW MILITARY SERVICE BILL PASSED BY THE COUNCIL, The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE COMPANY TRUST BILL.' The report of the Committee of Selection. on the Now Zealand Insurance Company Trust Bill camc up for consideration. The Hon. O. SAMUEL said that it had appeared to the Committee that it was desirable thai a clause providing for the publication of accounts should bo inserted not because it was necessary -n (lie present case, but as a precedent which it might be necessary to adopt in future in regard to other companies. A clause had therefore been inserted providing for the publication of annual bal-ance-sheets. He moved vhat tho report of the Committee be agreed to. This was carried, and the Bill wis read a third time, and passed. MILITARY SERVICE BILL, RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS' CLAUSE. SIR FRANCIS BELL moved the third reading of the Military Service Bill. He said that there was no doubt that :hi Bill had beeii greatly improved duri.ig its passage through tho Council. One important amendment >that had been made was the provision for the Final Board of Appeal. The clause, in effect, was Mr. Paul's, although it varied somewhat from what ho desired. In providing for tlie exemption from military service of religious objectors the Council had acted wisely, as it would give the other branch of the Legislature an opportunity of again considering the question. At the same titpe, lie tho*.oughly believed in the provision thai had been made for the case of the religious objectors, whom the authorities in England had learned to respect.

TTTe Hofi. J. BAR.R dealt at considerate iength with the clause providing for exemption to reliigous objectors to which he was opposed. Ho admitted th'at the opening that had been made 'n Ms respect was very closely guarded, and the Credit for this fact was due totho leader of the Council. Prooably this matter would come before the Council again before it was disposed of. He was a firm believer in the principles of religious freedortt, but when the .umpire was at death's grips with another country it became a question of whether every individual in-' tho community should not fight not only for the religious liberties of the country, but niso for his own religious liberties. It perhaps might be snid that this was only a small matter affecting' only two .or three small bodies, but there was no certainty that organisations that to-day were, numerically weak would not in twenty years' time be the dominant, or amongst the dominating, religions organisations of the Dominion. Wo had established an nndesirablo precedent.

Sir Francis Bell referred to ths precedent that already existed in the Defence Act regarding tlie Territorial system, and- that ill the present case the precedent was being limited.

Mr. Burr said that what was done in the Defence Act was 110 justification for what was now being done. The condition. of affairs had entirely altored since then. The result of exempting those who -said that, they regarded !' as contrary to , Divine regulation to bear arms might result ill quite a. number of religio.s bodies springing up in the future with professions of the same belief in order io escape the bearing of arms. The Covenanters of old were prepared to fight for their religion, and he was still of opinion that if a religion was not worth fighting for it was not worth having. An isolated passage of Scripture j wns a poor foundation for any religion. [ I f a religion was founded on the Bible, ' it .must be based 011 the book as a whole. Many passages of Scripture, if need be, could be quoted as a justification for bearing arms. He pointed out that the Bill was in the interests of the liberties ,of the workers., He referred to the fact that in Germany trades unions enjoyed none of the liberty that they enjoyed under the . British flag. German trades unions were not permitted to question of wages, and even the workers' I franchise limited. Mr. Barr then strongly criticised the opinions expressed at the recent Canterbury Farmers' Union Conference, arid particularly he took exception to tho remarks made by Mr. David Jones, who, ho siiid, had suggested that the Government should be asked to consider the question of exempting the men. oil the land. He (Mr. Barr) said that the,men on the land should realise that their duty was not merely to cultivate the land, but also to "light for tho land. The small farmers had done their duty in going to the front and sending their sons there, and the wealthy landholders should also realise that they had a. duty beyond piling up wealth at the expense of the blood and misery of those who went to the war, and. those they left behind them. The Hon. T. MACGIBBON said that he agreed with a great deal of what Mr Barr had said. Our present liberties had been purchased at great cost by those who went before us, and it was regrettable that these liberties should now ho held fo lightly by some people. It was not a time to regard the opinions ot particular people upon the subject of j defence, when tho 10mpire was ofi cr n°'6<l 111 struggle such as the present." *He could appreciate the scruples of some of these people if the war wrc one of aggression, but it was a war of defence —a tight for the very existence of the I'iinpire. He would have lweii much hotter pleased if the door that had been opened had never been opened at all. there was a spice of cowardice in any miin who sheltered himself in this wav 1 he Hon. J. T. PAUL thanked the . 1 21 I 1 1? C< ll' l,cll tlle members or the .Statutes Kevwion Committee for the fair consideration that had Wn given to any proposals that ho had put forward, lie agreed that the Bill had been materially improved by the Council s amendments. He did not agree with i criticised the new clause providing for the religious objector. There were sects at least firmly opposed to the bearing of arms. i'on. T.\ Beehan? Supposing all religiour denominations objected to bearing arms, where won,ld we bo? .Mr. Paul said that the cardinal principles ot other religious bodies were entirely different. He believed that the insertion ot the new clause would lessen the opposition that was likely to he shown to the operation of the Act. lie had opposed tho Bill, but he had not obstructed it—(hear, hear) —and when it was passed he, as a loyal citizen, would observe the law. Mr. Barr's speech had indicated that probably there, would be many applications for exemptions. If the Dominion could do more lor the Kinpirc by sending foodstuffs for the annv than by sending the small number of'men that we were able to send, the Home Country no doubt would be grateful if we .took the former course. He was doubtful whether it was a matter for great credit that wo should be the first portion of the Kmpire to become fearful of not being nble to keep up her reinforcements; as a matter of fact, there had been no real trouble in maintaining 'the strength of the reinforcements. Mr. Paul said lie would oppose the third rending of the Bill. He believed that in the future the country would appreciate the actions of those who had taken up the attitude that he had taken up. Labour had little to gain from the measure. It was onlv a short step from military conscription to industrial conscription.' No Labour organisation had anproved the principle of the Bill, but a large number of Labour organisations had denounced it. A member: Certain sections! Mr. Pau,l: It was said that those who opposed the Act were revolutionaries. A member: Ked Feds! ] Mr. Paul said that there were Bed

Fed capitalists as well as Red Fed Labour men. If the Bill was intelligently administered and consideration given to the rights and consciences of uU, he believed it could be put into operation without much harm, but he wished to emphasise the need for an intelligent and tolerant policy.

The Hon. W. BEEHAN said he saw no reason for the exemption that was being extended to these "two or three bodies. Next to serving their God, their duty was to serve their country. Ho was surprised that the results of Prussian militarism—the outrages in Belgium, the murder of Nurse Cavell, and tho wanton destruction of churches—had not appealed to these people who said it was against their creed to . fight. '

SIR WALTER BUCHANAN replied to the remarks by Mr. Ban 1 in regard to the attitude of the Caiiterbui'y Farmers' Union respecting the Bill. Mr. Burr had iiot taken a fair, view of the attitude of Mr. David Jones. What the latter had said was that if the country population was depleted to too great an extent the Dominion would be unable to supply tho Old Country with material to the extent to which materials had recently been supplied. A -motion had been passed to the effect that the Imperial authorities should lie asked which was of the most importance—men or material. The line that had been taken up by the Farmers' Conference 'was a very reasonable one. The Hon. It. MOORE expressed strong dissent from Mr. Barr's remarks regarding Mr. David Jones. The latter, lie said, whatever might be thought of the political views that lis so fearlessly expressed, was an honourable and highly respected man. The Hon. W. EARNSHAW said that if religious objectors were provided for, the concession should also be extended to conscientious objectors. A most dingertfus precedent hail been laid down. No sound argument had been laid down in favour of the exemption. The Hon. G. CARSON said that the Bill was a good measure when it was received from the other branch of the Legislature, and it was now an even better Bill, thanks to the excellent work of the Statutes' Revision Committee. He did not think there should be the same distinction between officers and men. as there were at present. Sir Francis Bell: Who is going to exert discipline? Mr. Carson: The officers, of course. Sir Francis Bell: Then you must have a. distinction. Mr. Carson: Of course, there must be a distinction, but it is not necessary for officers to have finer food and finer clothing arid an upstart air in order to maintain discipline. Jlr. Carson said he supported the exemption for certain religious objectors. He did not interpret Scripture as they did, but he thought their scruples should be respected. The Hon. A. T. MAGINNITY expressed opposition to the religious objectors' clause. The Roman Catholics had a conscience, and no more believed in committing murder than any of the sects to whom it was proposed to grant exemption. Yet many of the Catholic priests had gone into the firing-lines. The Hon. W. Beehan: There are 60,000 of them fighting in France. Mr. Mnginnity asked what the people, who wanted to be exempted would do if an enemy came to our snores. Would they simply )io down and be killed? He expressed a hope that the Board of Appeal would do their work impartially. 1 SIR FRANCIS BELL, in replying, expressed surprise at some of the opinions expressed by some of the speakers. He was particularly surprised at certain members not being willing to respectitbe scruples of inon—stubborn, perhaps—but earnest in their adherence to the tenets of their inherited faith. He alluded to remarks that had been made ill reference to tho powers given under the, Bill ,to the Governor-in-Council. He 6aid-that it, would be quite impossible for anyone to say at the present time just whero tho powers to be given to the Government should end. It was necessary for Parliament to trust the Government to the best of its abjlity. Tho Government would moke mistakes, and no doubt its mistakes would be criticised and its successes ignored. There was no complaint to-be made against this, and of'course the criticism of mistakes would have the effect of enabling them, to avoid similar errors in future. He strongly defended the right of exemption being granted to religious objectors such as the Quakers. Thcso men, since the beginning of tho seventeenth century, in evil times and in good times, had consistently held to the .one position, and had suffered imprisonment and torture in order to hold to what they regarded as their Master's command and Master's voice. He regarded the exemption as only right and just, and-said that opposition to it could only be accounted for on the ground of unconscious bigotry. The Bill was read a third time and passed. 0 SOLDIERS' SETTLEMENT BILL. ALL STAGES PASSED. The Council went into Committee on the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Amendment Bill. 'JJlic Bill was passed through Committee,' the only .intendment being the' addition of the following new sub-cihnse to Clause 5, which was moved by Sir Walter Buchanan:—"ln the mutual report to be prepared by. the Minister of Lands pursuant to Section H of the principal Act there shall be included full particulars of )(inds acquired under, litis section during the year to which' the report relates, including particulars of: (a) The aggregate area of land so acquired; (b) the owner or- respective; owners from whom such kuid has been acquired, and, in the case of each owner, the area of land retained by hint; and (c) tho price paid to each owner from whom land has Iteen so acquired." . The Bill was read a third,time and passed. Tho Coucil adjourned at 9.23 ?.m.