SOLDIERS’ FINANCE

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 118, 12 February 1941, Page 5

SOLDIERS’ FINANCE

Assistance Board’s Action CHRISTCHURCH CRITICISM Dominion Special Service. CHRISTCHURCH, February 11. Criticism of an alleged unsympathetic attitude by the Soldiers’ Financial Assistance Board as shown by the suggestion that a soldier should transfer his full military allotment to his mother at' the expense of his own provision for his return, was expressed at a meeting of the executive of the Christchurch Returned Soldiers’ Association; The discussion arose about ir statement issued by the board in reply to criticism by the executive in November of the board’s failure to assist a soldier and his mother. As reported at the time, the applicant sought assistance iu payments on a home being purchased | in the joint names of mother and son. ■ Portions of the board’s statement in reply were read to the meeting last night. One extract from the board’s reply was: •‘The quantum of a soldier’s allotment and the purpose for which it is used depend entirely on circumstances, but provision for his dependants within i his financial capacity must obviously be his first’obligation. The funds placed at this board’s disposal are provided from the War Expenses Account, and it will be clear to you that grants cannot 'be made from these funds to meet commitments which could be provided from the income available to the soldier or his family from other sources.” i Reallotment Suggested. The reply also stated chat of his military allotment of 4/6 a day (£B2/2/6 a year) the soldier in this case had allotted £36/10/- a year to his mother and £45/12/6 to the credit of his Savings Bank account. The mother received also a military allowance of £lB/5/- a year and the widow’s benefit of £52 a year. It was competent, however, the reply added, for the soldier to divert to his mother bls full allotment, which could, if necessary, be increased to 5/6 a day, or £lOO/7/6 a year, which would give her a gross 'income of £l7O/12/6. “The net result of our representations to headquarters is simply that the board determines to disagree with us on how much a soldier is entitled to live on.” said Mr. M. A. Richards. "That. I think, is the total of our efforts and I still adhere to my opinion that the board is wrong.” He objected. Mr. Richards added, to the board's apparent attitude that a man away lighting for his home and j country could be expected "to live on the smell of an oily rag." To his mind the board was “taking up a very niggardly and wretched attitude,” which would not encourage men to join up or to look forward to service. I The president, Hr. D. W. Russell, said j that he would not like to say that the i association's protest had not had any I result. A great deal of publicity had been achieved, and when a body such ; as the board knew that its actions were j liable to be criticized by an urgan'iza- ' lion such as the association one was j ' more likely to see justice done and the i : men’s interests watched. ’ 1 Mr. E. Orchard moved that the circu- j

Jar be received and that the executive was satisfied to leave the matter in the* hands of Mr. W. E. Lcadley. a member of the board. Difference of Viewpoint. Mr. A. E. Haynes said the board apparently considered that when a man went. away lie should allot all possible to his dependants. “1 think it is in this that we differ from ilie board's attitude," he added. "Our altitude. I think, is that a man is justified in putting—almost in fact thal il is bis duty Io put —a little aside for when lie comes back. It is I lie differenl viewpoint that is the trouble. If lilt: board takes Hie allilude they appear to take, then it seems Io me that we will gel nowhere. II almost makes one feel that it is useless to continue representations to the board." Mr. Richards moved "that we still consider that the particular ease we referred to has not received that sympathetic treatment by the board that could be expected of it, ami thal I lie mailer be placed ia tile hands of Mr. Leadley to carry on further represeiiltrtions."

Tin; million was seconded by Mr. -I. I). Godfrey and was passed without further discussion.