THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, June 18, 1941. APPEALS AGAINST SERVICE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24636, 18 June 1941, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, June 18, 1941. APPEALS AGAINST SERVICE

It is high time that the whole system of appeals against military service was re-examined by the Government in the light of the experience gained by the Armed Forces Appeal Boards. Thousands of such appeals have been heard by the boards, and an analysis would probably show that exemption from service was granted by them in a considerable proportion of the cases dealt with by them. That is not to say that the boards have been failing in their duty. On the contrary, the difficulty of their task shoulcf be generally appreciated, since they are frequently obliged to rely as much upon their own judgment of the sincerity of appellants' convictions where appeals are made'on moral grounds —as on the evidence placed before them. It would be idle to pretend, nevertheless, that a good deal of dissatisfaction does not prevail with the working of the system as it has been demonstrated in public sittings of the boards throughout the country. There has been, for example, a good deal of newspaper correspondence on the subject of appeals made in "the public interest," as well as of those lodged on grounds of conscientious objection to service, and the feeling that seems to be uppermost in many minds is not only that the system works inequitably in certain cases, particularly those relating to farm employment, but that, where moral objection to military service is advanced as a ground of an application for exemption, it should be within the province of the boards to order some form of alternative service and to see that the conditions of exemption are fulfilled. Returned soldiers' organisations have, not surprisingly, interested themselves actively in cases based on conscientious objection to service, and at a recent meeting of the Dominion council of the R.S.A. it was resolved to urge the Government to make alternative service obligatory at soldiers' rates of pay and to define immediately the conditions of such service. If the Government has any sense of the meaning of the phrase "equality of sacrifice" it will give this request the consideration which it merits. The Government is already preparing to recruit married men for military service, and it has an obvious duty, before that step is taken, to ensure that no eligible single man is excused duty on grounds other than those of absolute necessity. Where conscientious objectors are concerned, the Government's procedure is clearly open to criticism and is, indeed, calculated to arouse resentment. Although the Appeal Boards are able to exempt conscientious objectors, they have no authority to order alternative service. That right is retained by the Government itself, under amended regulations which became operative last month. The Minister—in this case the Attorneygeneral—may direct that an appellant be employed on work of a civil nature upon such terms "as the Minister thinks fit." Is there any justifiable reason for such an extraordinary reservation of powers? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the Appeal Boards themselves, acting under a clearly defined authority, could not better determine the question of alternative service in. the light of the evidence placed before them? It is typical of the Government's administrative method to reserve final judgment on questions of equity more and more to Ministers themselves, although they may be no more, and frequently much less, competent to decide important issues than the authorities whose functions they usurp. It should not be impossible to define forms of alternative service, with conditions governing them, to meet the cases of all conscientious objectors, to leave the question of their enforcement automatically, to the Appeal Boards in collaboration with the civil or military authorities. . The public would then know what was required of men who refuse to take their places beside their comrades in the field. All that it does know just now is that men who are avoiding, if not evading, military service are, in a great many cases, appar--1 ently permitted to continue in their enjoyment of all the privileges attaching to civil life and occupation.