SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18680, 1 May 1926, Page 17

SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.

TO THE EDITOR OT "THE PB2SS." Sir, —I understand "Digger Patient's" thorny dilemma only too wellI have been through the mill, and so know to my own sorrow how the wheels pinch. I remember when there were happier days at Hanmer. But ever since that unfortunate day, when a Minister of the Crown was foolish enough in an unguarded moment to refer to tlie place as a "half-way house," service patients have had to stand tho public mistrust as being border line cases. Not that there need necessarily be any disgrace in that, because no man knows in these days when mental sickness is liable to c.ist its shadow over his life, even fevers being but a form of temporary insanity. But old prejudices die very hard, and so the public attitude towards Hanmer has been of a most unjust nature. I, too, like "Digger Patient," could say many things about Hanmer, and tho pensions administration (u those casOi; but like him, I am also tied down hand and foot by ridiculous red tape regulations. Wo are supposed to have fought and suffered for the cause of liberty. But the liberty allowed us by the Pensions Department is about the length of a dog chain, and no more. For instance, the economic pension regula tions are farcical in the extreme, snd seem to bo so designed as to make i s feel like thieves for taking it at all. Cannot the Canterbury members or Parliament combine in one big drive to have such foolish regulations rescinded, and sensible ones instituted! It is most ridiculous, for instance, that in this small'country, we should have to have two distinct Pensions 'oarda It is still more ridiculous that tne Appeal Board should have no jurisdiction over the Economic Pensions. But we understand tlte reason only t-oo well, and that is because the Pensions separtment's only concern seems to be to cut all pensions down to the utmost minimum. For instance, if the Appeal Board raises a disability pension, the Peusious Board can cut down the economic pension (or cut it out altogether)," and no one can say "boo" to them. That is how they can get it back on us. ■> 1 ■

But perhaps I have already said too much, and may be called upon to_ answer for my sin of daring to criticise the Pensions Department at all. I thank you, Sir, for having published my first letter in its entirety, and so rendered a good service.^—i ours, etC- ' R. M. THOMSON. Auckland, April 26th, 1926.