PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 50, 2 June 1916, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

i'EE IJEEBB1 J EEBB ABSOOIATTON

Wellington, June 1

When the Council met at 2.30 p.m., Sir F. H. 1). Bell moved the second reading of the War Pensions Amendment Bill. He outlined the amendments made by the Bill in the principal Act. Hon. .1. Beehan snid that parents should be given a pension by right, as provided for by clause 9 in the case of a widow.

| Sir W. Hall-Jones referred to pensions granted to members of the Civil Service and claimed that men who risked their lives for the Empire \\o\o entitled to the most favorable consideration.

! Hon. R. Moore said that the Act 'had been considerably widened, and he .thought that Mr Beehan's suggestion .was going too far. I Hon. S. George contended that the 'scheme of insurance might have been arranged to cover the lives of men at the war. This would have cost about ,one million pounds for 50,000 men, and he considered this a matter for consideration by the Government. I Sir F. H. I). Bell briefly replied to •the points raised, and the second readling was carried. The Bill was reported from committee without amendment and read a third time and passed. The Council rose at 3.30 p.m. and [adjourned to Wednesday next.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

Mr T. W. Rhode's (Thames), in continuing tlie debate, said that lie supported the principle so its to ensure equality of sacrifice. He believed, however, that it was the duty of Parliament to make adequate provision for men and their dependents. He agreed with the previous speakers that the wealth of the community should be called up to provide for the war, and he also believed in securing a proportion of the war profits. Mr W. T. Jennings (Taumarunui). warned the House against military despotism. Although he would support the Bill on the second reading he proposed to strenuously' oppose some clauses in committee. What'he mainly objected to was the '"swagger" of some Officers.

Hon. Jas. Allen : "There is no "swagger in our army.

Mr JenningS: "Oh, yes!" ' He'complained of the delay in the payment of dead soldiers' back pay and hoped that the Bill would compel those now shirking to come forward.' Mr W. J. Dickie (Sehvyn) supported the principle of the Bill, and had confidence that the Government would do their best. He praised the administration of the Defence Department by the Minister, but objected to boys of under twenty going to the war. The Bill was necessary as a matter of justice to our gallant Allies. Mr. J. T. M. Hornsby (Wairarapa), could not admit the force of those who objected to compulsion. He complained of the levelling-down tactics of some ot those living in the country. The man who spoke-with a view of deterring recruiting was guilty of disloyalty of the worst kind, and was worse than a German. There had been threats made that if the Bill passed it- WOuld sbp fallowed by industrial trouble. It was a disgrace to any mail to utter, one word against recruiting while the enemy was at the gates. AVe had to maintain our pledge, given on the outbreak of war, or be everlastingly disgraced. lbquoted instances of sons who had been prevented by their fathers from enlisting, and asked, Was this fair? He offered a tribute of honor to the noble manner in which working men had offered their services, and looked forward to them doing even better in the future. He considered that a conscientious objector to fighting for his country should not be allowed to vote. Mr J. S. Dickson (Port Chalmers), regretted that the Bill had not been introduced in the previous session. In his opinion, the voluntary system had been a failure, and he favored alteration of enlisting ages to 21 and 55 years. He said that members of the Exemption Board would have to be very carefullv selected. Mr H. J. Obey (Taranaki), pointed out that the principle of compulsion proved effective in 1858 in the time of the Maori War. He supported the I Bill, to which the necessary amendments would no doubt lie made in committee. j Mr A. E. Glover (Auckland Central), .supported the Bill, which he regarded las a matter of expediency. Mr W. Nosworthy (Ashburton), alluded to the sacrifices made by all sections of the community; if any sections had failed it had been the statesmen and politicians. He regretted that the Government had not brought down the measure earlier. He believ!ed the Hill to be a good one, with fewloopholes for escape. The majority of I speeches in the debate had been loyal 'ami patriotic. He took strong exception to the remarks made to the effect that the rich were not doing their 'share. The Labor members were opposed to conscription. .Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui), said that when there was a surplus of population the voluntary system was satisfactory, but the time had arrived when Jth'e compulsory system was required. Labor members should support the Mill as they claimed that sons of rich men were not enlisting under the voluntary system, and this Pill would compel all ciasses, without reservation, to join the colors.' He trusted the Government to do its plain duty in regard to taxation. More would have to be done in this direction than in the past. He complained that legislation was being brought down in piecemeal fashion, and considered that provision should be made

to assist those with financial obligations who might be conscripted. He bold it to be the duty of every member to give a H possible assistance in making the Bill a complete success. FEELING OF THE MAORIS. Hon. A. T. Ngata made a lengthy statement as to the history of the Maori contingent. The men at the front were calling for reinforcements. No Maori blood could be shed without calling for revenge, and ''that was the reason why the Natives asked to be included in the, Military Service Bill. He thought his race would bo invigorated by the war, and that many misunderstandings between the two races would disappear'as tho result of righting side by side. He warned the House that if the Military Service Board were edmposed of military men the whole thing would break down. So far as. the Maoris were concerned he would exempt the Maori race from the Bill, but there really was no necessity for its exemption. He mentioned that recruiting in Rotorua district had been such a success that it cost £-10 per recruit.

PRIME MINISTER IN REPLY. Mr Massey said that the policy of the Government since the war began had been in support of Empire, and to keep the country prosperous. After two years,of war no one could say they had not dono their, duty, and that the country, was not prospering. With regard; to 'the A orga#M|s;p of industries, he mentioned ;tliat,'Uiistead ; of the con- : sub"being, taken it: had been arranged tliaV'it* would be ;; taken in Oe-: tobej. nextVf*A:iJe, \appj;ecia>tqd the! remarks of members concerning the marriage clause of the Bill, and he could state that he' and his colleagues were prepared to amend that clause, i Jle also 'appreciated the remarks of Hon. A. T. Ngata concerning the Maoris and compulsion, and if, the Maori members desired if they were prepared to eliminate Maoris from the Bill, leaving them to volunteer, He pointed out that in the dark days of the Maori War conscription was 1 general in the Auckland district. The Bill did not.at all do away with voluntaryism, and he would say that" no'Bill that had ever come before Parliament had received sucli consideration as the present one. The compulsory clauses of the Bill would not bo put into operation unless sonic. district failed to produce its quota. The difference between their Bill and the Bill of Abraham: Lincoln >as that theirs made 11$.distinction, .between millionaire and-wage-earner, whereas Lincoln's measunf'rtlloVvcd • a •man to provide a substitute or to buy himsell out. The difference between Lincoln's war and our own?was that the former fought for freedom of slaves, and we were lighting for our own freedom.They had not compelled one Territorial to go to the war, as had been suggested by some members. Regarding Labor's attitude in the House, he challenged tho member for Lyttelton to speak on behalf of Labor. He asked him if it were a fact that at a recent meeting in Wellington, where a. unanimous vote against compulsion was said to have been carried, many of the delegates present left the

room. Mr McCombs: "That is absolutely incorrect."

Mr Masse}-: "I was told that it was so by a member of the present forces, who was present." Continuing, be directed the attention of the House to several resolution* carried and enactments passed in refutation of allegations tbat there was no authority for the sending away of Ex-

peditionary Forces. He believed that the people had made groat sacrifices and would go far, but ho also believed that they would be called upon to make greater sacrifices in the future. He would say that the honor of the country was concerned, and that the 60,000 men who had gone away would 1)0 supported to the last man in the country. The Staie was entitled for its defence to the services of every man in the community. While European countries were armed to the teeth it was foolish for Britain to go on depeud-

pig upon money and the voluntary army.

Healing with tho arguments concerning conscription of wealth, Mr Massey stated that the war was costing us something like twelve millions annually, and if some of the members' arguments were carried out they should collect eleven millions in the country annually. Of course, that was absurd. He mentioned, with regard to the Military Service Board, that they would probably find a Stipendiary Magistrate presiding over the tribunal. He further stated that telegrams were beginning to come in to him and other members of the Government suggesting that peace terms should be arranged in the not too ■ distant future. Ho hoped that there would be no premature peace, and that there would bo no peace until the Allies administered the "knock-out blow."

Mr McCombs stated that he bad the assurance of the Secretary of the Trades Hall that Mr Massey's assertion that there was a diversion of opinion concerning the Bill was contrary to fact. •■: k i

Hon. It. Buddo (Kaiapoi), supported, the Bill, because among other reasons, it brought<alnclasses info lino. Hon. G. AV.jdlussell said that ho had Sir Joseph' Ward's .authority lor saying that he hoped to be present at the third reading;-to be able to state that the Bill had his full support. The !>'■ had been given most careful consideration, and, was placed before the House as perfect as,possible: Members would note that telegrams in the newspapers showed that the Bill had already caused a sharp rise in recruiting. However, they had to redeem their promissory note. The Bill presented an alternative, should the voluntary system not supply the reinforcements required. Ho explained matters in regard to the taking of the ballot. The Crown was taking no steps to claim exempt-on for their servants, but would bo in the same position as private employers. After several other members had spoken, Hon. James Allen replied, and the second, reading was carried by i'J to 5. Tho House rose at 1.10,a.m.