THE BILL CRITICISED

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 136, 5 December 1918, Page 3

THE BILL CRITICISED

OBJECTION TO FOUR-MINISTER CONTROL The' Hansard staff liad no lack of exercise yesterday-afternoon and night and early ,this movniug on the second reading ■of ihe -Repatriation-Bill, which had a varied; reception. The proposed Ministerial Board had much buffeting. Towards the eloso the debate dragged tediously in a thin as;d weary House. Sir' James Allen, who introduced the BiU, said that the work of dealing with

Sir James Allen, who introduced the BiU, said that the work of dealing with discharged soldiers hscd hitherto been undertaken by tlie Discharged Soldiers' Department. It was now necessary to extend the. work. Within" the next twelve mouths New Zealand would have to deal with 50,000 men, providing for re-employment, care of sick and wounded, and vocational training.' Education and training'were now being undertaken in England, and, would be continued until the men could be returned 1 to the Dominion on the transports and in convalescent homes. The Repatriation Department would replace the Discharged diers' Department. The present organisation wouldj he hoped, be improved, and .the'provision, made by the Government would be extended,so thata man would be assured of getting a position .is good as he left, and if possible better. The idea was that they should be returned to--their former occupations, or similar occupations, and, owing to; vocational training'and education, would be better fitted- for that work. One great principle was to guard against unemployment and the evils of temporary employment. He hoped that soldiers would notbe'attracted by high .wages into temporary employment. Another' principle was to restore the soldier to civil life a? quickly as possible. On return, each soldier would be given 28 days' leave on full pay. and a railway pass for four weeks. That was not all that would be done. '•■•■'•■ GRATUITY PROMISED. In a Bill to be introduced shortly, provision would be made for recognition of a soldier's service by a gratuity based upon the length of service of the men at the front.' (Hear, hear.) DETAILS OF ORGANISATION. Sir James Allen explained the composition,of; the Repatriation Board of four Ministers," and the proposal! to appoint a Director of Repatriatioij, under whoni would be district repatriation officers (paid) at firot in the four chief centres. These officers'would keep in touch f with district repatriation : boards. It wns suggested that'these boards should comprise representatives of the Returned Soldiers' Association, employers, . and Labour organisations, National Efficiency Boardi trustees; Y.M.CvA.j -. Salvation Army) "Workers' Educational Associations, patriotic societies, country industries, and medical representatives. That constitution was not final.. ■ Mr. Forbes: Who is left out? . Under the district boards, said the Minister, there would! be industrial boards and local committees, which would be responsible for every soHier . who•' returned to. their district. They would.assist in his resettlement and keep in touch with him until he had definitely settled down. Any assistance required would be obtained through the:repatriation officers. These boards would have certain advisory and consultative powers and also administrative functions wltich might be delegated to them. Funds were provided for out of the War Ex* penses Account, and half a million had already been allocated for this work. If more was required he had' no doubt it would be.forthcoming. Provision was now made for the first time for financial assistance to. reestablish soldiers in business. .. ' ' ,'.■■- A member: It is not, enough. The Minister explained the other clauses in the Bill, as already summarised in The Post; The principle of the Bill,, he said,, was not to spare any money or any effort to assure that the soldier who had been to the front and been brought back should be assured of us good a position as he had before,.and if possible a better one, The work was most important, and he hoped that all persons and associations which could.assist would do 50.,. :■ "OFFIciALDOM." Mr. J. T. M., Hornsby Baid he was inclined to doubt; whether there was not too much officialdom in the Bill. Why should the official head be a military man? .-■'.■. • ■ • Sir James Allen: It does not say ho will-lje: .' ■' '. ■ . Mr. Hornsby: Who is to be the director.'of repatriation?.: Will he be a military man or a civil officer? . A member: He' will be an autocrat. Mr. Hornsby said he had 'every respect for .the military,' man,, but no faith in him in civil affairs. '. ■ - - Mr. Hornsby added, that there were some fine provisions in the Bill to assist men back to civil.life, and he hoped that, they, would be put into operation without delay. • He feared that there would be too much of the militaristic spirit j that the soldiers would still be under the thumb of the military.' The district officer would be a military man. Sir James Allen: You are imagining •it.'- '' ■ ■' ' . ? ;■■ ■ Mr. Hornsby entirely approved, of ths proposals for dealing with men who gqt "ont of step." He suggested farm colonies for such men. r~" Mr. J. Vigor Brown (Napier) asked whethei' the men of the Motor Patrol and South African veterans would'be included in the Bill. Mr. EH (Chrietchurch South) said; the Bill was the greatest one of "the session. Mr. M'Ccimbs (cynically): ;It ought to be: ■'■ • ' . ' •.,-.'■ "■ Mr/ Ell suggested that returned soldiers should have a railway pass once a year, the privilege enjoyed by railway servant*. He believed that next session a Pension Bill on -more generous lines' than the present Act should bb passed. A.SOLDIER.MEMBERS VIEW. Mr. W. Downie , Stewart (Dunedin West) said that the Bill was very belated. ' There had been jost as much necessity for a scheme for the men already' returned as for those who were yet to return. , There was not yet a proper organisation for s the treatment of urn discharged soldiers. The workshops at Rotorua and elsewhere should have been established : long ago. There wa« nothing more disintegrating ilor more demoralising to a soldier than having too much idle time on his hands. He had seen many men in. hospital whose recovery had been retarded by worry as to their future after discharge. He suggested' that ' ■& voluntary organisation could be helpful to men in hospital. He did not consider the/COnstitirtion of ths proposed board as If a returned' soldier had a difference, of opinion with, the proposed Director of Repatriation, and approached the Minister of Education, he might be' referred to j another Ministerial member of the I board, who might pass him on to another. There was no definite Ministerial head. He praised the work of General Richardson, who, he declared, had done more in Englandi for the civil repatriation of soldiers than had been done in New Zealand. If the services of that officer could be obtained as director, the speaker would waive the fact that ho was a ■ military officer for civil duty. Mr. 1 Bt«w«rt commended the example set in

Australia. The scheme there was complete arid satisfactory, from what he had heard of it. SEND FOR MEMBERS! Mr. Witly (Iticcarton) said he believed the Minister was trying to do his best in the Bill for the soldiers. He complained that the help of members of Parliament was not sufficiently invited. There shouldl be groups of these members to help in working the scheme. It was jnsfc as. important to give help to men to establish themselves in business in towns as in the country. The proposed f lending of £250 to help men "in estab- \ lishing themselves in civil employment or occupation" did not go tar enough. Mri K. P. Hudson (Motueka) emphasised the need for seeing that soldiers were well advised, aud their (jualifications ascertained, before they were assisted, to enter occupations new to them. He favoured administration by one Minister, who could be relieved of all.other duties,, rather than by a board of. four. He commended especially the provisions for helping soldiers to re-establish themselves. ... ,

Mr. W. T. Jennings (Taumarunui) recalled the soldier settlements following the Maori wars, and in view.of what happened there saw no objection to a military officer being in charge of the work. He commended the provision for local boards. He doubted whether a man's' discharge could be cancelled as was* proposed. Mr. Anderson (Mataura) saidi th»fc no matter what was done for soldiers it was necessary that they should be prepared to push for themselves. The jropoeal of four Ministers to manage the Repatriation Department was a case of "too many cooks." He would have preferred a single Minister, even if one had to be obtained from outside Parliament. CONTRASTS IN COSTS. Mr. M'Combs Lyttelton) said that 'lit an average of £2500 (supposed to be the I average), £1,000,000 would settle only 400 soldiers on the land. Out of 26,000 soldiers who had returned to New Zealand only 1000 had been placed on the land. As much as £8000 was the capital coat of settling one soldier. Mr. Massey : Why not? Mr. M'Gombs said that he did not object to £8000, but he mentioned this matter to show what a little way the allocation would go at that rate among so; many. A much less slim than the amount needed for land settlement would place returned men satisfactorily in the manufacturing industries. Figures showed that the capital invested in New Zealand's secondary industries averaged £380 for each person employed. Mr. Luke (Wellington North) said he would prefer to have the-executive authority vested in a single Minister, with two civilian advisers and one military. That would be better than the nebulous scheme outlined in the Bill. The Hon. W. D. S. Macdonald submitted that the Government had done much to help returned men. A large number of them had signified that they needed no help. The great majority of 60,000 or 70,000 who had yet to return, would be able to place themselves with- | out difficulty. He believed that every member of the House took a real interest in the soldiers. Ministers believed that the best and the utmost that could be done would not be too good for the soldiers. Mr.<_ Fraser (Wellington Central) urged the importance of direct representation on any boards set up under tEe Bill. Sir James Allen began his reply about 3.15 a.m. He said,that the benefits of the Bill would be extended to naval ,ratings. There ,was good reason why there should be a difference between advances for land settlement and town business; the security was wholly different; The limit in Australia 'for business in towns was £250." The Bill was read a second, time at 3.25, and the House then rose.