PRISONER OF WAR GRANTS

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27699, 1 July 1955, Page 8

PRISONER OF WAR GRANTS

Patriotic Council’s Criticism SUPPORT FOR INCREASE TO BE SOUGHT Dissatisfaction with the manner ii which Government prisoncr-of-wai funds had been distributed and with the amounts of money former prison ers of war had received was expressec a* a meeting of the Canterbury Pro vincial Patriotic Council. The council decided to seek the support of other patriotic councils in pressing for further grants. A report of the council’s standing committee said that in November, 1954, the Government had made available £20,000 to the New Zealand Patriotic Fund Board to be expended on former prisoners of war who had fallen into the hands of enemies other than Japanese. Of that sum. £lB,OOO had been distributed, and Canterbury’s share was £2586. Nearly 100 men had received money in Christchurch from the Metropolitan Welfare Committee, and grants totalling £1936 had been made. Twenty-five grants had been made by country committees, which had spent £6OO. However, a number of men had applied for grants after the money had been spent. These would be dealt with as far as possible when the balance of £2OOO held by the board was distributed to provincial patriotic councils. Canterbury’s share of the £2OOO, it was reported, would be about £250. ‘‘lll-Thought-Out Scheme” “I wonder whether we should make a protest against the very great shortage?” said Sir Ernest Andrews. ‘‘The council had instructions to distribute at least £25 to each prisoner of war, but it simply went nowhere. Quite a number have been disappointed. I understand the Patriotic Fund Board has refuj ed to apply for further money. It is the most ill-thought-out scheme I know of. The numbers of prisoners of war must have been known. I do not know whether we can do anything seeing the Patriotic Fund Board has refused to, but it should be made known.” Mr D. Barrett (Returned Services’ Association) said he wished to support the remarks made by Sir Ernest Andrews. ‘‘We should ask the Government to give a further grant to dissolve the dissatisfaction in the city today,’’ he said. The chairman (Mr R. M. Macfarlane, M.P.) said that in view of the number of disappointments with the prisoner-of-war grant, a member might like to move a resolution on the matter. Sir Ernest Andrews: It is very difficult. I really thought the board would apply to the Government for more money. As they have not done so, the best we can do is to express our disappointment in the amount and ask whether the other provincial councils would join with us in a protest. It is not much good making one on our own. A motion expressing disappointment in the inadequacy of the grant and asking for the support of the other councils in seeking a further grant was moved by Sir Ernest Andrews, and seconded by Mr Barrett. “The Government stated in making this grant that only those in actual need were to apply,” said Mr R. Bruce. “I do not think the sum was sufficient to cover 5 per cent, of them all. It was expressly stated that it was just for those who had suffered greatly during their terms as prisoners of war.” In answer to a question by Mr Macfarlane. Mr Barrett said that the Government had advanced a sum of £2500. but had specifically stated the amount which should be given to each individual who applied. “The grant was made for those in need, and the recommendation was that grants should be of £25,” said Mr P. H. Wood. “It was not a straightout grant to every prisoner of war.” Mr Barrett: It has caused extreme dissatisfaction throughout Canterbury. Those who came early got it —good luck to them —but those who had not heard about it came late and did not get it because the money had gone. We know of some deserving cases who missed. Sir Ernest Andrews said that the early applicants had got in, and if they had shown need they got the money, but not all of them had got £25. Some had received much less than that. The motion was carried without dissent.