HOUSES FOR SOLDIERS.

Evening Star, Issue 25698, 23 January 1946, Page 7

HOUSES FOR SOLDIERS.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —In supporting " Fed Up " and " Fighting Back " I wish to supplement their remarks relative to rehabilitation. First, one is given to understand that the local rehabilitation committee is at fault as a body, but on this point f must offer support to a section of these patriots. I personally have had interviews with these men, and my opinion—well based—is not too encouraging to the greater half l'.put in an application for a property loan, and notwithstanding the positive fact that T could clear my loan inside three years and that the property co7icerned was ideal for a nursery, the State Advances Department told me that J was wrong, and yet the present owner, who has been on the place for 30 years, has always kept out of debt. To be exact, the' corporation stated that it would—maybe—advance on a more up-to-date property. The whole thing boils down to this:—The Government rigidly supports loans to soldiers if the loans manage to exceed the £I.OOO mark, and by doing this it has o-ood reason to expect the property to be put back on its hands, as the financial hurdle will be too great for the unfortunate "digger." Tf Ibis does not happen it has the poor -hap anchored for the term of his natural life. Should " Fighting Back " and ''Just Fed Up " desire to send tht>pnames and addresses into your officii

" care of The Editor " I will call for them with a view to instituting, a campaign , against this rotten administration system.—l am, etc., Non Gestapo. January 22.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —" Fighting Back" brings up the question of our rights. As Mr N. Jones said at the by-election, it is the community that is providing, not the Government. What then are our rights against the community? ft seems to me that we have at least a right to be helped,' where necessary, into the positions we should have held but for the war. Essentially it is a rehabilitation scheme and not a reward system. We read that there are hundreds of returned men waiting for farms. Some system of rationing is necessary and it could conceivably bo argued that a man of 47 was too old from two points of view. If nobody wants his services that could be one point. Secondly, there was plenty of time, prior to the war, in which to obtain a farm, and if this was impossible due to the economic system what is ■ required is a change in the rights of all farm labourers. I think that the R.S.A. ' Review ' is correct when it says that " the rehabilitation scheme is both comprehensive and generous in its conception," and that the R.S.A., when given both sides of a case, will see that the rights of the soldier are satisfied as far as such rights cen be defined.--! am, etc., Returned Soldier. January 22.