BITTER DEBATE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 171, 3 May 1930, Page 5

BITTER DEBATE.

RETURNED MEN’S PREFERENCE

POSITION IN AUSTRALIA

United Press Association—Copyright.) CANBERRA, May 2.

There were impassioned speeches in the House of Representatives upon the motion for the adjournment, moved by Colonel Cameron, to protest against the abolition of preference in employment to returned soldiers. He said that at least 85,000 returned soldiers would be affected, and insisted that the Government was hound to stand by the returned men. It was nothing short of scandalous to make them play second fiddle to the ordinary unionists .who played no part in the war. The Prime Minister (Mr J. H. Seullin) denied that the Government had abolished the policy of giving preference to soldiers. The policy of the Government was preference for unoinists and no returned soldier could be denied preference if he joined the union. Unionism had made arbitration possible. Arbitration; was the policy of the country and preference for unionists was the policy of the Government. He understood that 80 per cent, of returned men were unionists. Without Unionism it would have been “God help the returned soldier!” The people who shouted most for them had exploited and robbed them. An uproar followed, after which Mr W. M. Hughes, defending the returned soldiers, said the government had done a wrong and very foolish thing. The motion was talked out. In the Senate the motion for adjournment was moved by Senator Sir Wil.iam Glasgow, who warned the Government that the returned soldiers had a very powerful organisation, which would deal with it in the same wav as they dealt with the enemy if justice was not done to returned men.

In the matter of preference Senator Daly (Leader of the Government) de-clared'that-the Ministry had as “1110011 consideration for returned soldiers as tile Opposition. The debate/ which was extremely bitter, like that in the House of Representatives, ended with the withdrawal of Sir William Glasgow’s motion.