SLUR ON SOLDIERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 11

SLUR ON SOLDIERS

MUST JOIN UNIONS TO SECURE WORK

BITTER FEELING IN AUSTRALIA United r.A.—By Telegraph—Copyright CANBERRA, Friday. The adjournment of both Houses of Parliament was moved today, to protest against the announcement by the Federal Minister of Works, Mr. J. A. Lyons, that in order to obtain preference returned soldiers must now be unionists. There were impassioned speeches in the House of Representatives when the motion for adjournment was moved by Lieutenant-Colonel D. C. Cameron. He said at least 85,000 returned men would be affected. The speaker insisted that the Government was bound, to stand by the returned men. It was nothing short of a scandal to make them play second fiddle to ordinary unionists, who had played no part in the war. POLICY OF UNIONISM The Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, denied that the Government had abolished preference to soldiers. The policy of the Government was preference to unionists, and no returned soldier could be denied preference if he joined a union. Unionism had made arbitration possible. Arbitration was the policy of the country, and preference to unionists was the policy of the Government. He understood that 80 per cent, of the returned men were unionists. Without unionism it would have been “God help the returned soldier.” The people who shouted most for them had exploited and robbed them. Uproar followed, after which Mr. W. M. Hughes, defending the returned soldiers, said the Government had done a wrong and a very foolish thing. The motion was talked out. HZAT IN THE SENATE In the Senate the motion for adjournment was moved by Sir William Glasgow, who warned the Government that the returned soldiers had a very powerful organisation, which would deal with it in the same way as they had dealt with the enemy, if justice were not done to the returned men in the matter of preference. Mr. J. J. Daly, Leader of the Government, said the Ministry had as much consideration for returned soldiers as had the Opposition. The debate, which was extremely bitter, like that in the House of Representatives, ended with the withdrawal of Sir William Glasgow’s mdtion.