The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES" GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1945. MILITARY DEFAULTERS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 21753, 30 June 1945, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES" GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1945. MILITARY DEFAULTERS

Right from the start of the new session Parliament has run into vigorous debating form. Of course the military defaulter issue has been a gift to members eager to re-test their strength in argument. The pity of it is that an opportunity was not given to the House to discuss the establishment of revisionary tribunals before Cabinet action was taken. For the Government to present Parliament with what amounted to a fait accompli—the appeal authorities are already sitting—was yet another of those high-handed decisions which are being taken with such monotonous regularity as to set up a chronic irritation. Voting power has again 1 decided the issue. The comparatively small margin separating upholders of the right of appeal for the men in the detention camps and those who pressed for revocation of this amendment to the national service emergency regulations was due simply to the ' increased strength of the Opposition—a strength which is likely to be greater next year largely as a result of the lightning legislation flashed across a bewildered country without warning. The fact that, in a general sense, the granting of the right of appeal to military defaulters contains a strong element of British .justice is not in dispute. If Britain can make a success of the system, so can New Zealand, but it would have been better by ’ far had the Government inaugurated it at the start of the war. In the intervening period so many things have happened which reveal inconsistency in legislation—often to the disadvantage of the men who are fighting for their country —that it is, small wonder the outcry against the special consideration for defaulters is vociferous. SERVICEMEN FIRST

“Why is it too late?" ' asked the Attorney-General, Mr. Mason, in the House. “If there has been an injustice, why should it be allowed to continue?” The answer is that first consideration should have been shown for the fighting men who were heavily penalised, after three years’ service overseas, for their high-spirited, if misguided, action in carrying to extreme lengths their expression of disapproval over the Government’s methods of recruiting. man-power. Had there been first of all revocation of the punishment denoted by the appearance of their names in the Gazette, many people would have accepted in a more amenable frame of mind the sudden display of sentiment over the defaulters. The Government, furthermore, contemplates sending an expeditionary force to the Pacific. A proportion of seasoned troops must go with that land force. They will be men who have served in the front-line in Italy. Has the Government given thought to what the feelings of those men and of their relatives will be when the old firm' orders them to accept a position with “our Pacific branch?’’ New Zealanders have to travel far from home to fight in wars. They see the world, but plenty of danger and hardship is their lot. . The detained men have been living in safety and, from all accounts, comfort. They are not harshly treated. R.S.A. ATTITUDE

The attitude of the Returned Services Association in the dispute should be made clear. The association is not a political body. It has not taken up its crusade in a spirit of antipathy towards the Government, nor yet against the detainees. But it has ' definitely and irrevocably pledged itself —and rightly so—to fight, .for justice on behalf of the men who have served their country willingly, either overseas or at home. It also has some respect for the genuine conscientious objector who sees that ne can perform a useful duty in the forces in a non-combatant role. The objector to war on religious grounds who has served and suffered overseas, even though in a non-combatant capacity, will be placed in an ' invidious position unless he is shown compensating consideration. An adjustment of the situation in regard to the penalised furlough men and also to conscientious objectors wno have taken part in campaigns overseas should have been made or at least promised before attention was turned to detained men who have never left the sanctuary of their camps. It is not only the Returned Services Association which feels keenly over the position that has arisen. A large section of the public, particularly people with sons and husbands still in the forces, are not taking kindly to the Government’s edict. The placing of the successful defaulter appellants on parole and into essential industry sounds logical enough until thought is devoted to what the returning troops of the Division and the former prisoners of war tall men with long service) will say when they find that a certain proportion of the defaulters have been released into civilian occupations before they themselves have had a chance of rehabilitation. Mr. Adam Hamilton, who voted with the Government, doubts whether the number of releases wilt exceed 100. That is not the point. The whole principle is wrong. The issue could well have been left over, first, for discussion in Parliament and, secondly, until the best had been done for the men coming back soon from active service. The fairness of the appellate tribunals a§ a longer-term prospect is not questioned.