DISCRIMINATION ALLEGED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 8, Issue 14, 6 October 1944, Page 3

DISCRIMINATION ALLEGED

SOLDIERS FROM PACIFIC REHABILITATION DIFFERENTIATION The contention, thai discrimination had been shown by the Gow eminent over its rehabilitation treatment of men who had served in the compared with those who had .served in other theatres was made in the House: of Representatives' by members' of the Opposition when Ministerial replies to questions, were under consideration. The matter was raised by Mr AV. J. Broad foot (Nat ional, Waitomo) who had asked the Minister of Rchabilittalion whether he would extend to members of the Armed Forces serv-

ing in the Pacific area the opportunity of acquiring farms for themselves, pointing out that the men did not. go to the Pacific in prefeiv ence. to the Middle but were directed there. In the Minister (Mr Skinner) .said that the opi portunity of acquiring farms already existed for members' of the Armed Forces serving in the Pacific? and their applications for farming loans were dealt with exactly on the same basis as those from exservicemen with similar service qualifications. The. Opposition claims ed that the Government were sidestepping the rehabilitation to which many men were entitled by introducing a means test under the guise of the word "hardship" and that

the men from the Pacific zone seemed to be the forgotten soldiers of tlio present Avar. It was stated that maiw men had suffered hardship and ine.n from the Pacific zone were led to believe that under the Act they could obtain farms, but when they appeared before the Rehabilitation Board they were, told that they were not eligible. Without the procedure 1 was creating a barrier between the men of the Middle East and those of the Pacific which was one thing that should be broken down. The Pacific; men should be made to realise that

their services wore as essential as the services of those, who .served in

the Middle East. The men in the Pacific considered that they were not receiving the consideration they were entitled to. There had been no talk of priorities before the men left. The Minister of Rehabilitation denied that there was any discrimination against ex-servicemen whenever, they had served. Everyone was eligible under the Act irrespective where he serve.d t or what he served

at. If he was an ex-serviceman discharged from the Armed Forces lie was covered by the Act. It had been however, because of the entry of Japan into the war to institute a system of priorities. That 'was not. discrimination. The men lucky enough to get back first should not get all the. plums. The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) said there; was a limited number of houses and some must be reserved for those who had longer .service, than, others.