REPATRIATION BILL

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 136, 5 December 1918, Page 8

REPATRIATION BILL

j-JSECOND DIVISION LEAGUE'S ATTITUDE •Commenting on the Repatriation Bill' ■now before Parliament, Mr. R, A. Armstrong, National President of the Second Division League, said that the measure would be a great disappointment to all who had taken an interest inthe subject of repatriation. The Bill was really nothing more than an empowering measure, and there was nothing in its provisions ihat could not have been introduced into Parliament two. years ago. Because of the . statement made by a member of the National Cabinet to the effect that the Minister of Defence had "a scheme up his sleeve," the league had looked* forward to Sir James AllenJs speech in bringing forward the Bill to indicatein detail the proposals of Government. In this the league wouldi be again disappointed for, from the press reports available, the Minister's speech 'was merely a resume of the clauses of the Bill. It was apparent that the work of construction had still to be done, and it was greatly to be regretted that Government did not long ago take the bae powers that they were now asking for under the Bill. The League ExecufciTO had grave fears that by the time a sound working scheme was under way it would be found to be too late to be of real benefit. However, the present position was what had to be faced, and the great need now was far prompt and wall-directed action by the controlling j authority, and success or failure would depend' solely upon energy and capacity of administration and the careful selection of the personnel of the propotsed department. ■ I

The league was glad' to note that during the debate members of Parliament were practically unanimous in condemnation of the. proposed Ministerial Board of four. The league held that the necessary vitality and direct action which are now more than ever, required would riot be secured to the Department _ unless complete control and responsibility was vested in one Minister.

Referring to, the scope of the Bill, Mr. Armstrong said that in other countries, benefits were extended to soldiers' dependents under certain conditions, and as this was an empowering matter solely the same provision should be includedl in the Bill, to be used at the discretion of the Minister in control. The. provision far men who had not been overseas was limited to those who were attached to camp on, the 12th November, 1918, and this, would cut ont men, who for various reasons had been discharged prior to that date, and wHo might want to avail themselves of the benefits of the repatriation scheme. ■ There was really no need for this arbitrary embargo, and it should be eliminated from the Bill.

The league trusted that Parliament would see that the necessary energy and capacity, for the administration and carrying ont of the scheme to be formulated was assured before the measure left the House. <f