DISCHARGE BLOCKED

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 20, 24 July 1945, Page 5

DISCHARGE BLOCKED

VETERAN AUSTRALIANS

(Special P.A. Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, July 23,

The major political question at present is when the five-year veterans of the A.I.F. will be discharged. On June 1 Mr. J. B. Chifley, then Acting Prime Minister, made the statement that men with five years' service or more would be released. The leaders of the Federal Opposition claim that the Government's plan is not being implemented.

In the House of Representatives last week the Government defeated an Opposition attempt to force a debate on the delays in the release of these veterans. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. J. Menzies) had moved an adjournment of the House to discuss the matter, but the Speaker ruled the motion out of order on the ground that there was already an item on the Order Paper allowing a debate on Army releases. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) said that, at a suitable time the Government would give the House the opportunity to discuss the question, but he could not promise a definite date. . Mr. Abbott (Country Party, New South Wales) asked: "Will that be as distant as the releases?" In a subsequent statement Mr. Abbott said, an undertaking had been given on June 1 for the release of the five-year men who had served overseas, but that "veterans of the 7th Division entitled to a discharge were shipped to Borneo, in some cases to their death." Mr. Menzies said the case for discharging the five-year men was irresistible. Under modern conditions of warfare five years' continuous service was a magnificent contribution to the country's safety. A substantial part of Australia's Army had not been outside the country, but must by now be highly trained. Hence the problem of replacing the veterans was not insuperable. UNFAIR TACTICS. The Opposition advocated that the five-year men should be ' ordered out and not merely given the option of discharge, added Mr. Menzies. It was unfair to put the veterans in the position of appearing to abandon their colleagues. The Sydney "Sun" in an editorial supports this view and comments that the method of direction is adopted in New Zealand to save veterans from the invidious position of making a decision which should be made for them by the authorities. The paper! critics the Government for blocking a debate on the releases. It says: "No plea of form or of pressure of business should have been allowed by Parliament to stand in the way of justice—release from further service of the A.I.F. veterans.

"After all, surely Parliament could have spared five hours for men who have fought for five years."

The "Sun" blames the "military autocracy" for holding up the Government's directive that the veterans should be released, but adds that if the Government allowed the Army chiefs to flout its decision it is equally to blame.

The Canberra correspondent of the "Sun" reports that some five-year men who are physically unfit and have been rejected by their units because they cannot be used are being kept in base camps doing nothing. They have been told they must wait for detailed policy decisions on the five-year releases before they can be discharged. Meanwhile, adds the "Sun," men eligible for discharge under the Government's scheme have been sent to Borneo, and some will never .return.