SOLDIERS’ GRATUITIES

Evening Star, Issue 17154, 22 September 1919, Page 8

SOLDIERS’ GRATUITIES

PARLIAMENTARY ATTITUDE. LABOR MEMBERS DISSATISFIED. DEMAND FURTHER INCREASES. [From Cur Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 22. The Government scheme of soldiers’ gratuities coupled with a liberal acceptance of the retrospective principle in regard to the separation allowance, children’s allowances, and payment of the Expeditionary Force rates to those who obtained Territorial rate before embarktion will meet with acceptance by a majority of the House. Thanks to the way in which the Defence Minister’s earlier'proposals were reviewed by Reform members at several caucuses and informally last week-end they are in a shape which assures approval from Reformers.

The attitude of the Liberal opposition is undefined so far, but, judging by opinions heard in the lobby, the Government proposals will not likely bo seriously attacked. The official Labor party, however, have a definite line of opposition, and will push their viows with vigor when the proposals next come forward. They demand nothing short of the full Arbitration Court wage for all soldiers. The Government scheme brings the rate np to 6s 6d per day plus the value of ■ various-privileges and allowances. A married man with one child has been practically the Arbitration Court minimum but’ single men fall far short of this standard. Labor members claim that their scale could be paid by the expenditure of an additional £2,000,000.

PLEASANT SURPRISE FOR RETURNED -MEN.

[Special to xiii: ‘ Star.’]

CHRISTCHURCH, September 22.

The gratuity was an important topic of conversation among the this morning. they ail seemed Jngnly pleased with the announcement of Is fad per day, and with the terms under which it was "to be paid. “Wo hadn’t expected anything like Is 6d per clay, remarked several "diggers who were asked for their opinions. Other's were under the impretsion that t-ho amount had been settled long ago at Is a day, and the news that it was now to be Is fad a day was a really pleasant surprise. Mr W. E. Sealer fsecretary of the Christchurch Returned Association) discussing the gratuities said he was glad the lint rate had been decided, on. itto went on to say with regard to the amount: “ I am disappointed to sen that it is only Intended to pay the. gratuity from the date of embarkation up to the signing of peace. That will be obviously unfair to a number o? men who are still away. I think that any payment that is to be made should cover (he whole period from the day a- man went into camp until the date oi his discharge, provided he loft New Zealand for active service, bir James Allen states that_ the gratuity is the payment of a debit of gratitude by the people of New Zealand to the returned soldiers. If by that he means that the people of New Zealand as a whole must find the money to pay this gratuity, I think Is ■6d a day a fair thins.'; hut, if ha hud stated tho gratuity was a payment, of a_ debit of gratitude by the profiteers of tins country to the returned men, then 4s a day would not have been sufficient.' I think that sufficient money could be obtained by direct taxation 'from profiteers to pay tm; full amount of the gratuities which were asked for by the Wellington deputation. .SATISFACTION EX PHESSED. POSITION OF NURSES AND V.A.IVS. Speaking miofTn-ialiv. as a ret nrtwl soldier and not as Urn _ot Die Returned Soldiers’ Association, of the Hunrdiu branch of winch ho is precedent, J)r Harrison expressed the opinion tin’s morning that the gratitnity of Is 6d per day is a fairly a-ciierous ;'revision. aU thiniis considered. “1 do not thina, .he said, “ tliat tho .soldiers as an association should make a demand nr estimate n) whiit should he given. It is a giytiiiiy. not a. payment for services rendered : and therefore no more arguable limn any other present. Considering the stale of the country’s finance —and the soldiers as returning taxpayers have to coiisuder that—J. think the "sum fixed is fairly generous.” The doctor added that there might bo difference of opinion as to the flat rate, but there again the fact that the money was u pnitmty, 1101 a payment for service, had to" bo remembered’ if confusion of thought was to ha avoided; aiul the greater responsibility of officers, necessarily recognised in payments, was not oijnaily recognisable in the apportionment of a gratuity. “ There is. however.” ho continued,

“ one point that' requires elucidation. Thorn is no specific mention made of the

nurses. VVill the nursne of the receive Hi© gratuity with the soldiers? They tertiiinly ought to. and the V.A.D.’a atlcstt-d to the Forte should also receive some gratuity. I hope there is no danger of these latter falling between two stools, as 1 have boon informed some have in tha matter of the 28 clays’ leave, f am informed that some of the attested V.A.D.’s who worked in the hospitals in tho Old Country, and who wore under tin; I)pfonoo Department, not the Matron in Chiof of the New Zealand nurses, have been refused tho leave which ha-s been given all members of the. N.Z.E.F. on return.”

Dr Harrison slated further that some returned soldiers had been misled by the preliminary .statement (“ estimated cost of paying a gratuity at Is 5d nor day from embarkation to the signing ol peace ’’) into the belief that though they returned and were discharged at .some date anterior to peace, they were to receive tho gratuity from embarkation to Juno 28. 1919. Th'e position, of course, was that this referred only to men serving up to pence, or clhscharged after peace- was signed ; and that gratuities will be e-Vulateij from date of embarkation -to data of discharge.

lii conclusion. Dr.Harrison said that Urn minimum gratuity of two years far relatives of those who on service was verv gratifying.