A REHABILITATION CASE

Evening Star, Issue 25927, 19 October 1946, Page 10

A REHABILITATION CASE

REASON FOR DELAY THE DEPARTMENT'S EXPLANATION , Under date, October 11, the Director of Rehabilitation writes to us: “ Sir } —Your article of September 26 relating to the application for farm training and settlement by a returned serviceman who saw service in the Pacific calls for some comment. “You state regarding his training that “after keeping him waiting for the best part of a year, the department sent him to North Otago to an established grower.” This ,is not correct. He commenced training with the farmer in question less than four months from the time he first called on the District Rehabilitation Officer at Dunedin, and intimated his desire to go farming. The dateupon which he called upon the district, rehabilitation officer was May 9, 1944; the date ho commenced training was September 4,, 1944. Such exaggerated statements can surely serve no useful purpose in the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen. “ When this man’s case was first considered by the Rehabilitation Board in 1944, he was advised that in view of the fact that his overseas service was comparatively shorty viz., 81 days in Norfolk Island, he did not qualify for immediate farm settlement, and that his settlement would need ,to be deferred until the bulk of the men with long overseas service, or who . had served in combat • zones had been settled. This was in keeping with the board’s stated policy. However, he was; advised that;the board was prepared to immediately subsidise his training in fruit farming for a period of up to two years to enable him to qualify for an ‘A ’ grading. This offer did not carry any suggestion that he would be immediately eligible for settlement upon the completion of his training; it placed him in the position where he would have all the requisite qualifications pending the time when it’ was possible to extend farm settlement facilities to men in his category. “ When his training was completed he was graded ‘ A ’ viz., fully qualified. At this stage a mistake was made by my department in that the ex-service-man was wrongly advised that he was imipediately eligible for settlement and financial assistance. He should have been informed that he had been graded ‘ A.’ but that his settlement was still deferred in _ terms of the original advice to him. This error—and the inconvenienco thereby caused to the ex-serviceman—' is regretted. Unfortunately it was not until he applied to have his grading extended to- include Central Otago that the error was noticed and corrected. It should be dearly understood that he was never graded for Central Otago. “ Howevep, it is a gross and unjustifiable exaggeration for your paper to suggest that three years of this man’s life have thereby been wasted. The only period which can be said to be wasted is the three months during which the mistake regarding his eligibility was current. When lie commenced his training he was fully aware that his settlement was to' be deferred, and knowing this he undertook the training of his own volition'. He is how in the position, where, with the financial assistance of the Rehabilitation Department, he has obtained farming knowledge and experience which, is of real value. The mistake that was made, .in no way detracts from the value of the training, land experience he has gained. When .farm settlement assistance is extended to men in his service category, financial assistance to purchase a property will be available to him. To extend this immediately would only serve to delay the settlement of those many men with Jong overseas service in combat, zones, who must be the Rehabilitation Board’s first responsibility.”