SOLDIERS’ CRITICISM

Evening Star, Issue 24324, 13 October 1942, Page 2

SOLDIERS’ CRITICISM

CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS ANZAG DAY AN AWARD BARGAINING COUNTER An echo of Hie determined aland made recently by the Dunedin Returned Services Association in condemning the City Council’s policy of making appointments irrespective of whether the appointee holds subversive views or is opposed to military service, has come from Central Otago. Hr 0. L. Fercns, secretary of the association, at present on his annual visit to the various services’ branches in Central Otago, stated in his report read at last night’s meeting of the Dunedin body that the country associations were firmly in accord, and the various committees were watching progress at Dunedin with great interest. In his letter, considered at a meeting of the executive of the Returned Services Association about two weeks ago, the Dunedin town clerk had written that it was not the custom to make inquiries on such matters as appointees’ views, but if the person concerned should at any time in the course of employment intrude views of a subversive nature or calculated to injure the war effort, the council’s duty in the matter would bo plain. A resolution was moved at that meeting asking that the City Council amend its policy in regard to making appointments, and that the question of the views held by applicants in regard to the war effort be a mandatory one. AJ. last night’s meeting, under the chairmanship of Mr C. R. McLean, the report of the War Emergency Committee of the association was read. “ The town clerk’s reply is satisfactory in so far as it refers to preference of employment to returned men,” stated the report. “ We record our satisfaction that an instruction has been reissued to departments that such preference is to be given, other qualifications being equal. Wo are not, however, satisfied with the reply cither in respect of the two appointments complained of or of the council’s policy of not making inquiries from applicants for employment as to their attitude towards the war. Wo are firmly of the opinion that any body administering public funds, when making appointments, is in present circumstances not only entitled to, but should, inquire from applicants, both male and female, as to their attitude to war service. In the case of a married woman it should ascertain whether her husband is in one of the services or, if not, where and how ho is employed.” OFFENDING CONSTITUENTS, Tlie committee’s report continued by stating it was contended that a public body should not appoint to any position, whether permanent or temporary, any person who was not prepared to give service to the Empire in the present grave crisis, or who supported those who took up that attitude. If it did so it gave serious offence to a very large proportion of its constituents, including the great majority of those who were or had been members of the services, their relatives, and the relatives of those who had paid the supreme sacrifice. “ We feel,” it said, “ that we have the right to look to an important body like the Dunedin City Council to sot an example in these matters. We are particularly concerned at the appointment to the council’s staff of the wife of a military defaulter, who shares the views and supports the attitude of her husband, and we are also concerned at the council’s unwillingness to take steps to see that similar appointments aro not made in future. We recommend that further strong representations be made to the council asking: (a) That in order to prevent the appointment to its staff of any person who is not prepared should the occasion demand it to render service to the Empire in the present war, it frame its future policy to ensure that full and proper inquiries shall be made regarding all. applicants; (b) that it require the two appointees referred to in the correspondence to affirm their loyalty to the Grown, and, failing such affirmation, that it take steps to determine their appointments. In this connection we express the view that once suspicion has been aroused concerning his loyalty any free citizen should be prepared to affirm such loyalty, and that if lie is not prepared to do so he should not be employed by any public body.” ' A letter embodying the report is to be sent to the town clerk. At the conclusion of the discussion, which was largely taken in committee, Mr S. G. Secular returned to the meeting and resumed the chair. ANZAC DAY OBSERVANCE. A matter which caused some concern was the manner in which certain people aro prone to view Anzac Day. It appeared that the deeper significance of the anniversary was neither appreciated nor considered by these people. The Dominion Executive Committee of the N.Z.R.S.A., at its meeting last week deplored and roundly condemned the fact that Anzac Day, a national day of memorial, had become a bargaining point in award negotiations. In its communication to the Dunedin Association, headquarters pointed out that under the Anzac Day Act, 1920, as amended in 1921-22, the anniversary is to be observed on April 25 throughout New Zealand as if it wore a Sunday, and that where April 25 falls on a Sunday, there is no provision in the statute for observance of Anzac Day on the following Monday. “In the opinion of the N.Z.R.5.A.,” stated the communication, “ it is most regrettable that this day of memorial should bo bandied across the floor of the arbitration courts as a ground for obtaining an extra day's leisure for certain groups. Some awards of the Court of Arbitration provide for the observance of Anzac Day on April 26, when April 25 falls on a Sunday, and the N.Z.R.S.A. contends that this entirely conflicts with the spirit of the Anzac Day Act.” In at least one award, the statement continued, there was further provision that when April 25 fell on a Sunday, and Monday, April 26, was also a holiday, Anzac Day was to be observed on April 27. Such a thing would happen next year, Anzac Day falling on a Sunday, and April 26 being Easter Monday. The Public Holidays Act, 1910, made provision for certain holidays that fell on Sunday to be observed the following Monday, but Anzac Day was never placed on the list, and consequently should never have been allowed to become a bargaining point in award negotiations. “It was unanimously decided to make an emphatic protest regarding the matter,” the statement concluded, “ urging the Government to rectify the existing position by regulation in keeping with the Anzac Day Act, 1921-22, which provides: “ . , . that the 25th of April in each year shall he known as Anzac Day, and shall be observed throughout New Zealand in all respects as if Anzac Day were a Sunday.” GENERAL. Nominations for membership approved at the meeting were five members of the first N.Z.E.E. and five of the second N.Z.E.F. There were two transfers out and one transfer in. It was reported by the chairman that the Dunedin membership at this date, 3,003, was a local r*eord. Tlie membership at August 31 for New Zealand was 31,253, including 1,663 returned from the present war. As distinct from the Relief Committee, a new body, to bo known as the. Rebabililalion Commiltcc, was set up, members being Messrs W. IVForrester, A. McHutchon, J. B. Stewart A. Duncan, and H. P. Jefcoatc.