DEFAULTERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 29 June 1945, Page 2

DEFAULTERS

PROTEST AGAINST RELEASE

GOVERNMENT’S DEFENCE OF REGULATIONS OPPOSITION AMENDMENT (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) Wei ling-ton, This Day. Revocation of the recent amendment to the National Service Emergency Regulations giving military defaulters the right to make application for immediate release from detention camps was sought in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Opposition. An amendment to this effect was mot ed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland) when the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Nash) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply to consider the Imprest Supply Bill. Mr Holland's amendment gave rise to a debate which began early in the afternoon and continued until early this morning.

The amendment was lost by 38 votes to 31. One member of the Opposition, the Minister in Charge of War Expenditure (Mr Adam Hamilton), and the Independent (Mr H. Atrnore. Nelson) voted with the Government.

The text of Mr Holland’s amendment was as follows; “That this House, being gravely dissatisfied with the action of the Government in giying the right to military defaulters to make application to revision authorities for release from detention while our servicemen and servicewomen are still serving overseas, and while our prisoners of war remain unrepatriated, strongly recommends the Govc-niaen* immediately to revoke the National Service Emergency Regulations. 1940. Amendment 17, which gives to military defaulters the right to make application for immediate releast ”

Though Parliament was to sit only a few days after the gazetting of the Regulations it was not given the opportunity of expressing its views, said the Leader of the Opposition. .The Acting Prime Minister interposed with a point of order. He explained that two judicial tribunals were now sitting. After several members had spoken to the point cf order the Speaker (the Hon. F. W. Schramm) ruled that regulations which had been passed could be discussed by the House. Their effect and scope were proper subjects for debate so long as any matter was not introduced which would tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings. Mr Holland said that Parliament had given assurance after assurance to our servicemen that they would get a square deal. Provision had been made to hear the appeals of those who had conscientious objection to armed service, and men were excused, though some had afterwards undertak % noncombatant service. Where the objectors could not sustain their case their appeal was dismissed, and he would point out lhat as a safeguard, there were three members of tne tribunal. Though some whose appeals had been disallowed had eventually gone away to fight, others had elected to defy the law and were committed to defaulters’ camps as unadulterated shirkers. He and many others felt that those who would not fight should have no right to enjoy the benefits which came to those who were fighting for other people, (Opposition hear hears). Our freedom had been preserved at the price of millions of lives, and our- men were coming back to go into the Pacific and even to invade Japan. Under such circumstances, continued Mr Holland, could the Government expect them to sit back and not raise a protest against the privilege which was now being given to the military defaulter? There was no appeal for the soldiers, sailors, or airmen but only for the person who was a defaulter, and there was no defaulter who had not defied the law, added Mr Holland. “This is the chance the defaulters have been waiting for. and the decision was arrived at not after discussion in the House but by a discussion inside the Government caucus,” he concluded.

Mr H. T. Morton (National, Waitemata), seconder of the amendment, said he wished the debate could have been along non-party lines so that returned soldier members of the Government would have had the right to vote as they really thought. His chief objection to the regulation was that the Government was giving preference to defaulters over the men at present in the services. He h9d visited defaulters camps and could not imagine any body of law breakers being treated with more consideration than the defaulters. Apart from the splendid conditions, the defaulters had had Christmas leave and about the lime servicemen received an increase of Is a day in pay the defaulters received an increase of Is 3d. He could not urge the Government too strongly to reconsider its decision on the matter.

The Minister of Supply (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) said it was not the object o r the regulations or the intention of War Cabinet or the Government that the regulations should b* used to make possible the escape of shirkers, cowards, and humbugs. Th'ere was only one objective—to ensure that really genuine objectors should get the benefit originally intended by the House. No Government would expect to gain any political advantage from the step taken. The decision had been made through a sense of doing what appeared to be a just and proper thing to bring New Zealand legislation into accord with that of the United Kingdom and Australia. COMMITTEES REPORT Mr W. A. Sheat (National. Pa’ea) said the Parliamentary committee which heard evidence on the subject last year gave as its finding that as the matter was one of Government policy it had no recommendation to make. The main reason for that report was that the committee, during its deliberations, had had communicated to it a definite indication H at the Government had already decided to take the step it had since taken. It was mad-e perfectly plain to members of the committee by the chairman of the committee. Mr A. S. Richards (Government. Roskill) : That s untrue, and you know it. Members of the committee, continued Mr Sheat. were told that Cabinet had been discussing the matter and had practically arrived at a decision to set up tribunals and a very strong effort wa<= made bv Government members on that committee .to bring in ,a recommendation 'in favour of appeal tribunals It became perfectly obvious to the members of the committee that they were being asked to provide a smoke screen behind which the Government might crawl out of a very awkward oosition. “One cannot see much logic in the speeches made by Opposition members.” said the Attorney-General (Mr Mason> ‘Their. attitude, is that if an injustice has. ,b?pn. (jon6 it is too late now to rectify it Why is it too late?” the Minister asked. If there had been an injustice why should it be allowed to continue. He suggested a good deal of feling and prejudice were necessary to subscribe such a theory. The new regulations had been objected to, but there was a pla ; nly-worded direction to the Revision Authority that a defaulter should not be released unless the authority was satisfied that he had a conscientious belief that prevented him participating in war. The only question was to find who was the conscientious objector. It was likely that mistakes had been made, and if so, why not rectify them?

Mr W. A Bodkin (National. Central Otago) said he wanted to ask the members of the Labour Party how they proposed to reply to the charge of the R.S.A. that they should do the fair thing by members of a furlough party whose names had been published in

"le Gazette. The regulations were designed for one purpose and that was to confer rights and privileges on defaulters; they were given special rights. The Government was anxious lor men who broke the law and defied all the authorities

Mr A. S. Richards (Government. Roskill) said that the facilities available in New Zealand from the outbreak of war for ascertaining the genuine conscientious objector had not been as favourable as in other parts of the world.

Mr F. W. Doidge (Nat.. Tauranga) suggested that clearly there was to be a wholesale evacuation of the detention camps. That was to be done before the members of the forces and the prisoners of war returned home. The Minister of Jiistice had let the cat out of the bag when he satd that doubtless if the numbers were reduced there would be no need for all the camps and that it was probably correct that some of the. camps no longer would be required. Conscientious objectors bad been in defaulters’ camps for five years and had been denied British justice, declared Mr W. T. Anderton (Govt., Eden). He questioned whether the criticisms of the Returned Services’ Association truly represented the views of the majority of its members, and he challenged that organisation to take a vote on the question. “THREE YEARS LATE” He had absolutely no use whatever for conscientious objectors or military defaulters, said th e Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr Skinner). He despised their mental outlook and deplored the attitude they had adopted in time of peril, but were those men criminals? He would give the worst criminal in the world an opportunity to appeal against any sentence imposed upon him. The only fault he had to find with the amendments to the regulations was that they were three years late, continued the Minister, who said that some defaulters had been in detention for four years and quoted a list of crimes that had to be committed to merit a similar sentence. Of 57,000 original objectors in the United Kingdom only 100 were in detention, while in New Zealand there had been 2869 appeals and 688 men were in detention. Mr S. W. 'Smith (Nat., Bay of Islands), who followed the Minister, suggested that the answer to the disparity in those figures lay with the present Government. The members of the Government, he said, had encouraged direct action of all descriptions over the years from 1914 to 1918, and they were now reaping what they had sown. MR HAMILTON’S ATTITUDE “The regulations were agreed to by the War Cabinet and I stand by the decision to defend the regulations,” said the Hon. Adam Hamilton. The Minister said it had been stated that the regulations should have been brought before Parliament before being put into operation, but if Parliament had to be called together to make all decisions many things would not be done. It was necessary to review some of the cases because the war had continued much longer than anticipated. The punishment of defaulters had been heavy and had been a great deterrent to others. The Minister said he did not think there would be many men released. He did not like to make a prophecy but he did not think the number would exceed 100. Defaulters would carry a heavy burden for life.” Opposition voices: And so will the widows and children of some of our servicemen. Replying to the debate, th* Minister replied to the allegation that the report of a committee of tile House had been flouted by the regulations. This report, h e said, contained no recommendation because the committee considered the question involved a matter of Government policy. And, he added, it was Government policy to give a man a chance to present his case though if he failed to prove his conscientious objection he would still be detained. “This,” concluded Mr Nash, “is not a vote-winner but it is right that it should be done.”

CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW

REHABILITATION MINISTER’S CHARGE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) Wellington, This Day. “Returned men are meeting difficulties which, in many cases, they are unable to surmount because of the fact that business men, even though they may be within the letter of the law, are outside the law morally in my opinion.” said the Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr Skinner) in the House of Representatives last night in the debate on the regulations governing military defaulters. The Minister said the Government had been accused of stabbing ex-service-men in the back by amending the regulations to provide for revision authorities. The Government had proved again and again, and it had been freely acknowledged by the Returned Services’ Association, that no Government in the world had done as much for the returned servicemen. But many aspects of rehabilitation were being hindered by people who might not be defying the law, but who were circumventing it. Because of the unfair competition that some of the returned men were being subjected to their rehabilitation was being nullified completely. Mr Skinner quoted the case of a large drapery store which had stopped stocking certain lines. After a returned /serviceman opened a drapery shop the store stocked up a complete range and undercut many of his lines. Many rehabilitated men had complained of similar competition. There had also been attempts to circumvent the Land Sales Act. There had been some prosecutions, but in practically all cases the offenders had been just too smart for the authorities. “But,” added Mr Skinner, “we have served notice that we will definitely have no mercy on anyone we can prove is circumventing ±he Land Sales Act. These are the people who are stabbing ex-servicemen in the back, not the Government in allowing a handful of defaulters to have their appeals reviewed.”