I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is the annual Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill and its main purpose, therefore, is to provide that the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts shall continue in force for another year—that is, until the 31st March, 1942. The necessary provision in this respect is made in Section 2 of the Bill.
This year, in addition to the usual continuing section, the Bill contains a number of sections—none of them of a difficult or contentious nature—the necessity for which has arisen since the enactment of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1940. Two of the sections are amendments of that Act. The first of these— Section 4—amends Section 12 of the No. 2 Act of 1940, which provided that occupiers of premises might, during an emergency, be required to supply billets for members of the Defence Forces and that billeting requisitions might be served on such occupiers. The section did not advert specifically to the procedure to be followed as regards unoccupied premises. Provision is, therefore, being made in Section 4 of the present Bill that, in the case of unoccupied premises, the owner shall be regarded as the occupier for the purposes of emergency billeting.
When the No. 2 Act of 1940 was being debated in this House one or two Deputies suggested, with regard to Section 57, which relates to the restoration to employment, at the end of the emergency, of reservists called out on permanent service and of soldiers enlisted for the duration of the emergency, that a Minister should be given the power to prosecute employers who were guilty of flagrant breaches of the Section. Time did not then permit of the necessary amendment being made, but it is now being provided in sub-section 5 (1) of the present Bill that offences under Section 57 of the No. 2 Act of 1940 may be prosecuted either by the Minister for Defence or by the former employé. The power conferred on the Minister for Defence would be exercised in flagrant cases of victimisation where, in the public interest, an example should be made of the guilty party. Sub-section 5 (2) rectifies a slight drafting error in Section 57.
Also in the nature of an amendment of Section 57 of the No. 2 Act of 1940 is Section 8 of the present Bill. Through an oversight, due to the urgency with which the No. 2 Act had, in the circumstances of the time, to be enacted, Section 57 did not cover the reinstatement in their employment of officers of the Reserve called out on permanent service and of officers granted temporary commissions during the emergency. The necessary provision in respect of such officers is now being made in Section 8, the terms of which are similar to those of Section 57 of the No. 2 Act of 1940.
Sections 6 and 7 of the present Bill are of an emergency nature. Sub-section 6 (1) will enable Reserve officers who, for one reason or another, have not been called out on permanent service or who, owing to any special circumstances, have been granted exemption, to be removed from the Reserve if such a course is considered desirable.
Sub-section 6 (2) provides the machinery under which persons granted temporary commissions during the emergency will relinquish their commissions when the period of emergency has ended. In addition, it will cover the removal of such officers from the Defence Forces during the emergency, where such a course is necessary in the interests of the service, but where dismissal, with its consequent severe slur on the character and reputation of the officer, would be over-harsh or inappropriate—for instance, in the case of an officer found to be temperamentally unsuited to Army life or discipline.
Section 7 provides that no soldier of the Forces or Reserve will be entitled to be discharged during an emergency. The position in this connection is that, since the commencement of the present emergency, a considerable number of soldiers have had to be discharged after having completed their full period of enlistment and having been detained for the additional period of 12 months which existing legislation allows during a period of emergency. It will be appreciated, however, that a very difficult position will be created, having regard to the great expansion of the Army and the comparative military inexperience of so many of its members, if further experienced noncommissioned officers and men are allowed to leave Army service while the emergency continues. Section 7 is being introduced, therefore, to cover the matter. It will be noted that it provides only that there shall be no entitlement to discharge. Individual cases of possible hardship arising out of its enforcement can be considered on their merits. In any event, Deputies will have no hesitation in agreeing that the proposed course is fully justified by the cost to the State, over so many years, of the military training of the personnel in question.
Section 3 proposes to apply to officers the terms of Section 9 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1925. That section provides that where a soldier is certified by a registered medical practitioner to be of unsound mind and to be a proper person to be detained under care and treatment, the Minister for Defence may, upon such soldier's discharge, cause him to be sent to the asylum of the district to which he belongs. I may mention that where a soldier has relatives or friends capable of taking care of him and willing to do so, and where such a course is considered advisable, he is discharged into their care. In applying this section to officers, the same procedure would, of course, be followed.
Finally, there are two sections— Sections 9 and 10—relating to salvage. Section 9 proposes to give the same rights to the Minister for Defence to claim salvage in respect of the services of State ships as shipping owners have in law in respect of salvage services rendered by their ships. This section is being introduced to place the Minister's rights in this connection beyond any doubt.
Section 10 provides that a claim by the commander or crew of a State ship in respect of salvage services shall not be finally adjudicated upon without the consent of the Minister for Defence. This procedure is somewhat similar to that prescribed in the case of the British Royal Navy and is based on the very reasonable argument that salvage work carried out by the commanders and crews of state ships is done in the course of duty. Only in the most exceptional cases, therefore, where outstanding work has been done and the services rendered are very valuable, should a claim by the commander and crew of a state ship be permitted.
This Bill was submitted to the Defence Advisory Committee and they were satisfied with its terms. They recommended that, if it were found convenient, the House should give us all stages to-day.
