The section is opposed by Deputy Cowan.
This is a very simple position. It is just to know exactly what it means. The section says:
" Whenever an officer or man is borne on the roll of, or is being trained or exercised on, any State ship, he shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be employed on such State ship, and the expression ‘ employed on a State ship ' and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly."
It struck me as a very queer section and I would like to understand what exactly it means.
The definition is necessary because Section 85 and subsequent sections provide that members of the Defence Forces are liable for service within the State only unless they are employed on a State ship or service aircraft, when they shall be liable to serve outside the territorial waters of the State.
Section 85 is perfectly clear. I read the definition of a State ship on page 16, and if he is employed on a State ship, I do not see the necessity for this elaborate provision.
The Minister says it is purely for the purpose of definition.
It seemed to me to be a very involved way of dealing with it.
The men trained on a State ship might not be employed on it and might not be part of the crew at all. From that point of view, it is necessary to have it clearly defined that it is because he is employed on a State ship that he is liable for these services.
It is one of the complications arising out of the definitions in this Act which we will come to later. An awful lot of simple things which do not appear to need definition are defined.