ALTERNATIVE SERVICE FOR OBJECTORS

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 198, 19 May 1941, Page 6

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE FOR OBJECTORS

The principle underlying the amendment to the National Service Emergency Regulations, concerning conscientious objectors to military service, is a sound one. If men are to be released from their obligation as citizens to defend their country in time of peril, it is asking the very least of them that they should be required to perform alternative service under civic control and thus make some useful and definite personal sacrifice. But while the public will welcome the embodiment of such, a principle, the wording of the new Regulations is likely to cause misgivings. The Minister of National Service (Mr. Semple) has stated that “the right to obtain exemption from military service on the grounds of conscientious objection is to be contingent on a definite liability' to perform alternative service at rates of pay and under conditions that may constitute sacrifice. . . .” That is a very positive and satisfactory assurance. Yet it is not what tlie amended Regulations say. They are not at all definite... What they actually provide is that where an appeal has been allowed:

The Minister inay direct that the appellant be employed on work of a civil nature and under civil control of such nature ami upon such terms ... as the .Minister thinks fit, or may direct that the appellant be allowed to continue’in his existing employment or occupation upon or subject to such terms anti eontlitions as the Minister thinks lit.

In other words the amended Regulations do not place on successful appellants a “definite liability.” Instead they give discretionary power to the Minister, who takes action —or does not take action—“as he thinks fit.”

It is not in the best, interests of either the community or individuals that discretionary power of this nature be vested in one man—be he a Cabinet Minister or anyone else. The appeals of conscientious objectors are heard before tribunals; and, similarly, the nature and conditions of alternative service should be decided either bv those tribunals or by some other independent body appointed lor the purpose. More than that, the nature and terms of alternative service should be decided in advance as definitely and positively as possible. There will have to be uniformity, otherwise the existing inequality of sacrifice may be replaced, as time goes on, will: all manner of other inequalities. The problem as a whole is a difficult and delicate one, and in seeking to remedy it the Government would be very well advised to clarify the Regulations and delegate the powers thev confer to an experienced, non-political authority. 1 here could be hardly a less suitable occasion for .a move to extend the already wide powers members of Cabinet are conferring upon themselves.