Evening Post. THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1916. MILITARY SERVICE BILL

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 153, 29 June 1916, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1916. MILITARY SERVICE BILL

The Military Service Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 24th May. The second reading was moved on 31st May, and the third reading was carried on 10th June. This rapid progress would have been more rapid still but for the obstruction that was offered to the Bill both at the second reading stage and in Committee by four or five Labour members. The Legislative Council is not repeating the mistakes that were made in "another place." It is spending a good deal of time on the Bill, but it is not wasting time. It is proceeding deliberately and circumspectly, but without obstruction. In so doing, the Council is justifying its claim to be regarded as a revising chamber, and proving the value of the services that such an institution may render, .even in a case where the general principles of a measure are accepted with a very near approach to unanimity by the people. The Legislative Council has taken the course which we urged in vain upon the House. It has referred one of ! the most drastic and important measures j that ever came before the Parliament of New Zealand to a Select Committee, and that committee has done its work faithfully and efficiently. Two at least of the amendments proposed by the committee are of a far-reaching character, but no liberties have been taken with the essential parts of a Bill which is-just [as heartily approved by the Council as by the House. The amendments are, on the contrary, designed to promote its j successful working. The most important I of them is that which provides for the I appointment of a Final Appeal Board to ] hear and determine appeals from the Military Service Boards. From the..- outset we "have contended that a tribunal of j this kind was necessary in order to protect the administration of the measure from its greatest danger. As the Minister of Defence said in his speech on moving the second reading of the Bill, a measure which makes an equal appeal to all able-bodied men of military age to help in the defence of their country is both the justest and most democratic i method of raising an army. But the j equality desired by the Government and ] the House is not to be secured by mere j affirmation of their good intentions on the Statute Book. Absolutely universal service on the part of those subject' to i the Bill is neither possible nor desirable, ! since the needs of the industries of the country have to be considered, and j families cannot be allowed to starve in j orden that their bread-winners may enlist. The Act itself cannot provide directly for the necessary exemptions. Each case must be left to some administrative tribunal to be determined upon its merits. The Military l Service Boards, which J are *to be mainly, if not entirely, com- j j posed of civilians, and are to have, ] wherever practicable, a Stipendiary Magistrate for their chairman, may be expected to discharge this difficult task fairly well. But it is inevitable that there will be a wide diversity of opinion among tribunals dealing- with matters in .which they -will have no personal experience to guide them, and practically no precedents. -Diversity of opinion resulting in conflicting decisions on issues so intimately concerning life, liberty, and property will produce a very lively sense of injustice and acute discontent among those concerned. The ' eloquent appeal of the Minister to equality and justice will seem, to them to have been stultified. No better safeguard could have been provided against this "danger than the Board of Final Appeal which, on the recommendation of its Select Committee, the Legislative Council proposes to establish. If a Judge of the Supreme Court were made the chairman of this board, the country would have the best possible guarantee that the Military Service Boards would be restrained from vagaries which might seriously embarrass the administration of the measure. The question of religious exemptions is a more difficult matter, but we are satisfied that the refusal of the House to make any provision for the religious objectors wns due, not to any failure to recognise the importance of tho principle involved, but to the fear of opening a wide, door for evasion. As shaped .by the Select Committee of the Council, we think that the clause enabling the boards to .exempt religions objectors averts this danger Its three principal conditions arc that the scruples must be those, not of the individual objector only, but of the religious body lo which he belongs; that his membership must date from before the war; and that he must be prepared An I'cikW iiltfriinUvo ocn-vii;-within New Zealand. The gropasal to,

extend a similar privilege to any other conscientious objector was rejected by an even more overwhelming majority of the Council than that by "which it affirmed the clause proposed by its Committee. If the Hon. J. Paul is to be congratulated on the success with which he pushed the Final Appeal Board, the Council deserves our gratitude for declining to follow his lead on this other point.