Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1952

SECTION 178.

Amendments Nos. 230, 231 and 232 not moved.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 233:—

In subsection (3) to delete paragraph (c), lines 19 to 21.

This is where a subordinate officer is dealing with a matter summarily, in the case of a private. He may be a captain or a lieutenant and he has the right to fine a man a £1 or confine him to barracks for a period not exceeding seven days or in the case of a ship to stop shore leave for seven days. Then it says:—

" (c) in respect of such offences as may be prescribed, extra guards and pickets or, if the offender is employed on a State ship, extra watches."

I propose the deletion of that paragraph (c) and I have very strong grounds for opposition to it. A soldier in the ordinary way does his duty, a duty he is called upon to do, whatever it may be, and which is necessarily done in the interest of the State. In the normal way, where troops may be short and a particular unit may be short of staff or not up to strength or may have extra work to do, the additional duties are allocated as far as possible on a fair basis ; but I would never agree to duties being placed on a man as a punishment. I think that is wrong. Fine him if you like, confine him to barracks if you like, or warn him as is provided here ; but do not give him extra guards and pickets. That was part of the very old idea that did not look on a soldier as a man at all. It dates back to prior to the Indian Mutiny. You put a man on guard until you killed him with guard or picket duty. It is not right. A man on guard is in a very responsible position and must not get extra guard duty to do that he may be unfit to do, simply as a punishment. I am quite sure that the Minister would agree that duty is an honourable thing to do and it cannot be made a punishment. I strongly press this amendment.

Mr. Traynor

I was going to point out that amendment No. 225, which the Deputy did not move, proposes that this punishment should be deleted and provision made in its place for a severe reprimand or a reprimand or admonishment. Extra guards or watches is a very salutary way of dealing with offences, short of awarding detention, a fine or confinement to barracks. The same thing applies as regards this section. Actually, this type of punishment was utilised to a very great degree in internment camps, by ourselves when in internment. When men failed to carry out the ordinary duties which were allotted to them, or when they committed certain acts of indiscipline, they were given what is known as fatigue duties. We all have unpleasant recollections of having to do these fatigue duties. It might have meant carrying coal, sweeping up or washing huts ; but they were a form of punishment, which was accepted as being preferable to a fine or something of that type which you did not want, or even confinement within confinement, which you did not want either. It has a useful effect and I am pretty certain that soldiers would prefer to get duty of that kind instead of detention or confinement to barracks. How-even, if the Deputy wants me to examine it further, I am prepared to do so.

Chairman

There is only one real objection I have to it, that is, to the principle of making a duty what might be called a punishment. A man should not be in a position of having to regard his duty as a punishment. That is the only objection I can see.

Captain Cowan

Here it is " guards and pickets ". That is what is specifically provided. I would ask the Minister to examine that and also to examine the one I did not move.

Mr. Traynor

We will look at both of those.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 234 not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 235 would be comparable to amendment No. 228:

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 228.

In sub-section (5), line 37, to delete " he " and substitute " the accused ".

What is " he so demands " ? I think it is intended to be the accused but it could be the officer.

Mr. Traynor

It is textual. " The accused " comes before " if he ". It is obvious that it is the accused.

Captain Cowan

That is what I read into it but to prevent any misunderstanding—after all this will be read by rather junior officers, who may thinkthey have the right——

Chairman

Amendment No. 228 is similar.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, on the Minister's undertaking to have the matter considered.

Question—" That Section 178 stand part of the Bill "—put, and agreed to.

Section 179 agreed to.