Duty of Men in Wartime

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 188, 9 August 1941, Page 8

Duty of Men in Wartime

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE TO BEARING OF ARMS

NEW TRIBUNAL Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Aug. 8. The position of men who ban appealed against military service on conscientious grounds and of those whose appeals had either been allowed or been dismissed with the provision that they should undertake alternative service was explained by the Acting-Prime Minister, Mr W. Nash, in his promised statement which he made when the House of Representatives met at 2.30 o’clock this afternoon.

There were two principles which should apply to these men, he said. In the first place, no man of this class should be placed in a better financial position than one who, probably equally on conscientious grounds, had entered camp and been trained to fight. He doubted whether genuinely conscientious men would desire otherwise. The second point was that as a citizen he should be prepared to serve the community in the place where he could be of the greatest value, not necessarily in work connected with the war effort.

Regulations were now in the course of preparation, said Mr Nash, providing for the two principles he had enunciated to be part of the law relating to national service. The Government, he continued, had been exceedingly fortunate in securing the services of three leading barristers, Messrs A. H. Johnstone, A. F. O’Leary and A. T. Donnelly. These would be appointed as individual tribunals, with headquarters at Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch to determine questions raised under the regulations and would commence sit tings towards the end of this month. The hearings would be in camera and informal, but the applicants would be adequately represented. The regulations would also deal with the case of men who, whether on conscientious grounds or not, had failed to obey the orders of the tribunal, or having had their appeal dismissed, refused military service. It was clear that the community could not allow the law to be defied. The regulations would provide that, on conviction in an ordinary court of an offence against the tribunal’s order or refusal to perform military service, these men would be detained in a special defaulters’ camp. Though detention and discipline would be strict, the camp would give them an opportunity of performing useful service and would give recognition to the fact that, though they were offenders against the law, they were not criminals in the ordinary sense of the term. If this opportunity were abused, however, these men would forfeit their right for differential treatment, and offenders against the discipline of the defaulters’ camp would be Liable to imprisonment in ordinary gaols.

Mr Nash said that he would make a fuller statement when the regulations were gazetted. War Expenses

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. G. Holland) asked wliat opportunity the Houso would get of discussing the War Expenses Account. We were spending £70,600,000 under this account, he said. Tho Auditor-General had said he was not satisfied that all the goods supplied had been used for military purposes. Personally, said Mr. Holland, he had the highest respect for the army and he thought that the Minister of Defence should have an opportunity of clearing his Department from this charge. Mr. Holland referred to the great amount of expenditure that was co\ ered by statute and contended that the House should have an opportunity of discussing it. Otherwise what was the value of Parliament. He thought it would be a wise procedure for tho Government to do less by regulation and more by legislation. He would ask the Acting-Prime Minister to give some indication of when the House might be able to di'seuss war expenditure. There was some information under this heading that could not be made public, he said. They all realised that, but he thought that the House should have the right to consider whether such a sum as £15,000,000 should be speut on the army this year.

Mr. J. A. Lee said ho was curious about the actions of some of the Military Appeal Boards. Bo many people appeared to have been appointed to such tribunals who had not been soldiers in the last war, and in view of the differences in the decisions of tho tribunals, it was obvious that something was wrong. There should be some method of co-ordinating the de-

cisions of the tribunals. Mr. J-.ee stated that he had nothing iu common with conscientious objectors, but he was a conscientious objector to a person who did not wear a uniform in tne last war being the most ferocious critic of conscientious objectors. The Acting-Prime Minister (Hon. W. Nash) agreed that the House ought to have the maximum control over finance, but it had been agreed when the War Expenses Bill had been passed, that in wartime it was impossible safely to bring before the House expenditure in connection with tho war. It was plain-

ly impossible and inadvisable. He could not see how they could wisely talk of expenditure on guns, rifles and equipment in general and uniforms. If there were a way that the War Expenses Account could, without danger to the country, be brought under the notice of the Houso ho would bo glad to try and do it. However, under the procedure