CASE OF “GIFF.”

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20649, 25 June 1935, Page 10

CASE OF “GIFF.”

Sydney Society Man’s Appointment. A STORM OF PROTEST. (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY. June 19 A number of local bodies have protested vehemently against the form that “ preference to returned soldiers *’ has now taken under the recently amended Act, and, as I have already explained, there is a large amount of public feeling hostile to the new reading of the law. But Ministers still insist that all objections have be«Ai fully considered and that the Government has no intention of modifying its decision; and Mr Stevens during the past week reminded his critics that he “ has only honoured a promise that has been outstanding since 1919.” This remark invites two obvious questions—why was the promise not honoured before, and why ha«= the Government not applied the principle ' in dealing with its own selections for various public posts? The “ Bulletin ” observes that Mr Stevens did not consider war service when he chose his Ministers and his Railway Commissioner, and that one of the best and bravest generals in the AI F. has failed more than once to get pre-selection as an Assembly candidate, and the Government did not support him for the Council. As an illustration of v the way in ■which the system works, the newspapers have been quoting the case of a young fellow born at Newcastle who was only four years old when the war began and who—though six of his uncles and brothers served in the r/.FF— is now barred from a job on his home-town council’s staff. “ A Social Figure." As frequently happens under such circumstances, a special case has arisen which has focused public interest as a crucial example of all the difficulties that the question at s ue involves The person concerned t f nant ' Commander c - M. Gifford, better known as 44 G iff" to Sydney’s; and to the countless readfr7vrSLc he Societ >’ gossip in our more •• r» newspapers. For five rears wa s aide-de-camp to Sir Philip Game, and in that capacity he plaved Iffe rtan V Part in Sydney’s social life his inexhaustible energy and his enj °>' ment *ll the mufti fanous diversions- in which he engaged making him a general favourite. It has been remarked bv one aggneved critic that this chubby littfe uniform SP en e " t in his blue Air Force uniform was not alwavs as sweetPinion in u F iS a PPI e -blossom complexion would have you believe” and “.IT 8 t 0 have taken “ a and interviewed ?o7eave ed J hat the Games " ere ab out ineiy .sorry probably disappear from our social stage and many were the speculations as to what i est z y^: have in— *»■ " G/ff’d7 t f er £ was a rutt >our that w 7 find ‘ eP a he , r ' George Rayner, was finding a place for him on the directorate of a new motion picture company that he is working up B of°t r his an " G iff?. defin ‘‘<= had come out “ , Glff received an appointXh °L an entlre >y different nature, theddr . enga 6 ed P u blic attention mere e\er since. A Protest Raised. The Royal Prince Albert Hospital anxious to strengthen its financial' position has decided to create the new office of Organising Secretary” and Lieutenant-Commander Gifford was of. raided *7 ???*' A P rotest was at once raised, first by a private individual and to wdv, £ erta,n Public organisations 7- appealed - on the ground that Giffords appointment is an infringement of the Preference Act, as now amended. Of course Gifford served in . , the "' ar > fr ut as he w’as not a resident of Australia during the war years, and he did not leave Australia e ,s exclu ded technically from the benefit of the Act. The protest was made on the first instance by a returned soldier who had four years at the front, and is a married man with family reponsibilities—whereas “ Giff ” is single. On the face of it “ Giff’s" appointment appears to be a direct contravention of the Act. and as a natural consequence the public controversy over “ preference ” has started again with renewed R igour. On behalf of the Hospital Board it has been pointed out that there is no intention of abolishing the office of collector and that the terms of the Act will be applied to it. But it is argued that the post to which Gifford has been appointed is a new one no applications had been invited by' advertisement, and that, therefore no competing candidates had suffered. Dr Schlink, as chairman of the Hospital Board, informed the newspapers that this is the first time that an almoner has been appointed in Australia, that in the opinion of his board the post required very special qualifications which Lieutenant-Com-mander Gifford apparently possessed, and that, therefore, he had been invited to fifi it. It is not likely that the Hospital Board w’ill reconsider its decision, unless very strong pressure is applied. An Awkward Question. Giff himself naturally refuses to say anything, except that he expects to start his duties with the Royal Prince Albert Hospital on July 22, the appointed date. The Returned Soldiers’ League, having already committed itself to the view that the term “ returned soldier” should cover all Imperial servicemen w’ho fought in the Great War, has discretly left the matter to the Preference Board. But the Preference Board, which is due to meet this week, seems likely to postpone consideration of this awkward question Meantime protagonists of extreme views on either side have come into the field, and Major-General Gordon Bennett—who served from the landing to the Armistice, earned four decorations, and was eight times mentioned in despatches and commanded the 3rd Infantry Brigade on the Western Front—has contributed to the “ Telegraph ” a strong appeal in favour of absolute preference for 44 returned soldiers ” —however the term be defined — 44 unequivocal and complete.” But quite apart from the merits of this particular case, there is strong feeling here in certain quarters that the Act. as amended, is objectionable because—to quote the 44 Bulletin ” —it tends 44 to set young workers against their elders, to set some employers against some workers, and would set thousands of the mothers and fathers of the rising generation against Diggers in the mass.”