AID TO SOLDIERS

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 45, 21 February 1918, Page 8

AID TO SOLDIERS

NEED FOR LIBERALITY

DEPUTATION TO MINISTER

A PROMISE OF JUSTICE

A ■ deputation from the Second Division League waited upon Sir James Allen, Minister of Defence, this morning, for the purpose- of making repre-. senl-ations regarding the administration of the soldiers' financial assistance regulations and urging the claims of Home Service men for increased separation allowances. The- deputation,, which' was headed by the president of the league (Mr. R. A. Armstrong), comprised the- members of the-national executive. CASE FOR* THE LEAGUE. Mr. Armstrong thanked the , Minister for giving so ready an interview to them to place their case before him. The Minister, in an interview given yesterday, had stated that he would be pleased to investigate the cases in question provided the league would supply the names, and that if the league gave tlio 'names he would see to it that the names were treated confidentially, and would guarantee that the gratuitants would suffer hi no way whatever. The league! appreciated that, and would supply the names on that understanding. The league'had stood behind the Government in carrying out New Zealand's part in the war. The Minister had done them the honour of recognising that in public, and they appreciated his action. Regarding the case .they would present, they wanted a definite assurance that the matters they raised-would be remedied. They felt that if they could go away with a statement of something more than that their representations' would "receive the Government's consideration," they would have a' confidence which they had not had for some time. He emphasised that they did not desire that soldiers' wives and dependents should have to battle for justice, and objected to official enquiries being made as to whether the wife was likely to go out to work. They held that a woman's capacity to earn should not come into the question at all. He proceeded to urge the league's case on very much the same lines as leported in last night's issue, presented . the resolutions passed, and handed in the names of the gratuitants whose,cases were in question. POSITION OF HOME SERVICE i ■ MEN. Referring to. the refusal to! grant the same separation allowances to Home Service men as to men in the Expeditionary Force, Mr. Armstrong quoted the statements made by, the Minister in the House, declaring that in this matter both Home Service /men and Expeditionary Force men would be treated the same. Sir Janies Allen : Well, I' am afraid the position had to be reconsidered. It .had,to be reconsidered in view'-of-.-■ the ii.justices that would have beep created throughout New Zealand. Mr. -Armstrong"::. We do not. dispute that, sir, but we consider that where further injustice is sho\yn the position should be re-considered. Sir James Allen : AVell, you prove that, and it will be re-considered. In replying, to a case quoted by Mr. Armstrong, in which a home service man had been refused . his discharge when he wanted it, the. Minister said i he wished to make it perfectly clear ! that if a man volanteered.for home service it was reasonable to expect that the Department should hold him for a certain time—that a man should not volunteer to-day and sign off to-morrow. Mr. Armstrong agreed, but said they. ciesired that home service men who were separated from their families should re-, ceive a liviitt; wage. He complained that the Defence Department, in. issuing statements on this, question, ignored the lower paid home service man, and only quoted the cases of the higher paid men. Mr. H. F. Toogood objected to the Financial Assistance Board in insisting on an allotment of 3s 6d to a wife, leaving only Is 6d a day for the man himself. The league contended that the married man had even more right to establish' "a nest egg" for his'return than the single man—that his financial resources should not be exhausted .while he was on service. ' . ■ ■• \ ■'■'.■ Mr. 0; H. Chapman advocated 1 the increase of the separation allowances to 6s per day for ,a ,wife arid Is per' day for a child. ■'-.. ' . THE MINISTER'S REPLY Sir James Allen, in-reply, said he: was very glad to see' them and, hear what they had to say. ' The Government and the Minister of. Defence were .very anxious that those who came" before the Financial. Assistance.Boards should be treated liberally..': It was: his.! intention that the board should, deal' .'■ with 'them liberally,, and he'hoped ,it;i was. doing so. He wished to be candid. ■'-. He .wanted to say that he thought it would have-^been 'better had they, before they' presented their^ cases .in public, laid ; them before him and got the board's side of the case, and then presented both sides together. He was always willing to see them, and he_ hoped -they would be more fair in this respect in future. If they could show that any injustice had been done, it would be rectified. He wanted them to play the game and he would play the game. Mr. Armstrong : But you don't object ■■to us moving in public in this matter? r Sir James :By no means. Be as public as you like. The position to-day is that you complain that injustice has been done in the cases you quote, and I am still unable to reply. You may have an object—l don't know. QUESTION OF LIFE INSURANCE. Dealing with the question of the refusal Of the Financial Assistance Board to pay the premium on a new life insurance policy for £200 and the written statement of the secretary (as produced) that tlie board had no authority for doing so, the Minister said he thought the letter the deputation had read must have been written by the secretary of the board under a misunderstanding. They must know themselves that payment of such premiums had been authorised in cases. Did any of the members of the deputation know of a case in which such had been done ? . Several members of the deputation: Yes. The Minister : Well, there is the answer. The' board had the power to do it, and was doing it. though he did not say it was doing so in every case. The board took up the attitude that it would only consider the question of meeting the premium after the policy had been taken out. There were a number of cases in which the board declined to pay the premiums because the man was well able to do it himself. WIVES NOT j\SKED TO GO TO WORK. With regard to the allegation that Wives had been asked if they intended to go to work, Sir James snid he- was ■ informed that the board did not ask whether the wife was going to work, and never had done so. Mr. Armstrong: It is implied in the circular sent out. . ■ ' Sic James: I cannot deal with implications. . He .maintained that the allotment to a wife should be 3s 6d.per day. He 1 thought that was a reasonable amount.

They said that a- man required more ' than Is 6d a day at the front. Speak- I ing from fuller experience, he would say that a man could do with less than that at the front. The plea for more than Is 6d a day for the establishment of "the nest egg " was juiswered by the question : Could they not let. their wives creato " the nest egg " with the extra sixpence? Mr. Toogood replied that he had only spoken of "the nest egg " in relation to the league's demand for'6s a day separation allowance for a wife. The Minister, referring to Home Service men, pointed out that they wereengaged in that work purely voluntarily, and asked whether these men employed on homo service were entitled to the same consideration as tho man who was compelled to go to the battle-front? PREPARED TO ALTER THE BOARD. The Minister said regarding the Financial Assistance Board he wanted them to' believe that he was honest in his intentions when he framed the regulations and created the board. The scheme was designed in order to elimfhate cases of hardship. As far as he knew the board had been sympathetic and was doing its work well. He was prepared, however, at any time to re-consider the constitution of the board—hear, hear—if it was not giving satisfaction. The board, however, had a difficult task to handle. They could not grant every amount asked for, and refusals doubtless created concern in the minds of those who were affected. Ho was sorry to hear expressions of lacking confidence in the board. Mr. Armstrong said they did not attack the personnel, but considered it had. too much work to do. The Mifeter: I wanb you to have confidence in the board, and I want the public to have confidence. If at any time it could be proved that the| board was overworked or its personnel was unsatisfactory he would have its membership increased of changed as was justt : fied. He could not, however, promise to increase the number of boards because of anomalies that would arise through variations in decisions. A member of the deputation: What about the Military Service Boards? How do you balance that statement with the number of Military Service Boards? Sir James admitted that there had 1 been inconsistencies in the decisions of Military Service Boards'. REQUEST FOR CO-OPERATION. Sir James ■concluded by saying that he was always willing to get assistance from them.' He wanted them to work with him and his Department. Where there were attempts to exploit the Government it was his duty to protect the Government. They could rest . assured that whatever he could oVft would be done, but he asked them to go to him candidly when they- had grievances and. let him know what they were. Mr. Armstrong: We might be here every day, Sir. Sir James Allen: Well, lam prepared to meet you every day,' and I think I am a fairly busy man. He added that he was prepared to see justice done. •