PREFERENCE PROBLEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25848, 19 May 1945, Page 2

PREFERENCE PROBLEM

UNIONISTS OR SOLDIERS DEBATE ON AUSTRALIAN BILL (N.Z.P.A. Special Aust. Correspondent) (Rec. 7 p.m.) SYDNEY, May 18. The return of Australia’s 90-0,000 servicemen to civilian life is an issue tHat is being hotly debated by the Federal Parliament. Opposition members declare that the Re-establishment and Employment Bill now before the House of Representatives will not satisfy the nation’s conscience. They are seeking the Withdrawal and redrafting of the Bill. The debate, which has been in, progress for four days, will be continued next week. Sharp criticisms by Opposition members reflect the growing doubt whether the measure in its present, form will really guarantee effective preference to ex-servicemen. Certain classes of civilian war workers are included among the persons entitled to preference under the Bill. This caused the Leader of the Opposition, Mr R. G. Menzies, to declare: “ The moment you get away from servicemen you get into unchartered seas. If everyone has preference, no one has preference.” Close examination of the Bill has led critics to fear that it may not in practice prove to be binding upon employers. Several speakers in the House have suggested that under its present provisions preference to unionists will over-ride preference to servicemen.

Commenting 'on this aspect, the Sydney Morning Herald in a leading article to-day says: " Rightly or wrongly, the suspicion is growing that the Government is wearing down its preference programme in deference to the trades unions. Even in the course of the debates some supporters of the Government have made no secret of their belief that the unionist should come before the returned soldier, and the principle of preference to the latter has been hotly cpntested. by trades union leaders ever since Cabinet began to draft the Bill.” The Bill’s restriction of soldier preference to seven years after the end of the war has been condemned by the Opposition a 6 “an insure to servicemen.” The Lekder of the Country Party, Mr A. W. Fadden, warned the House that if this limitation became law any Government with which ,he might become? associated would consider .its repeal. ‘ . a . The Opposition estimates that from 600,000 to 900,000 Australians will have to be assisted to find suitable jobs after the war. Already 300,000 Australian servicemen had been demobilised, of whom more than 130,000 have been assisted to secure positions. The Opposition is also seeking an extension under the Bill of vocational training . for ex-servicemen, claiming that of those already demobilised only 2 per cent, have applied for full-time training and 7 per cent, for part-time training. The Government contends that the Opposition is attempting to employ the Rehabilitation Bill to drive a wedge between soldiers and civilian workers. Some Labour members have said during the debates that soldiers do not wish for preference, but they support the ideal of work for all. Thus, criticised both inside and outside the Government, the Rehabilitation and Employment Bill has been described by the former Prime Minister, Sir Earle Page, as “ a hybrid, such M a mule with no pride in its ancestry and no hope for posterity.”