SOLDIERS’ DEPENDENTS

Grey River Argus, 12 February 1941, Page 8

SOLDIERS’ DEPENDENTS

Allotment Question

MOTHER'S CASE

CHRISTCHURCH, February 11. Criticism of an alleged thetic attitude by the Soldiers Fina " cial Assistance Board as s hOWJI . / the suggestion that a • soldier shou d transfer his full military allotment to his mother at the expense of his own provision for his retu , expressed at a meeting of the executive of the Christchurch Returned Soldiers’ Association last evening. The discussion arose about a statement issued by the board in reply to criticism by the executive in November of the board's failure to assist a soldier and his mother. As reported at the time the applicant sought, assistance in payments on a home being purchased in the joint names of mother and son. Portions of the board s statement in reply were read to the meeting last night. One extract from the board’s reply was:— * "The quantum of a soldier’s allotment and the purpose for which it is used depend entirely on circumstances but provision for his dependents within his financial capacity must obviously be his first obligation. ine funds placed at this board’s disposal are provided from/the War Expenses Account, and it will be clear to you that grants cannot be made from tnese funds to meet commitments which could be provided from the income available to the soldier or his family from other sources.”

The reply also stated that of his military allotment of 4s 6d a day (£B2 2s 6d a year) the soldier in this case had allotted £36 10s a year to his mother and £45 12s 6d to the credit of his Savings Bank Account. The mother received also a military allowance of £lB 5s a year and the widow’s benefit of £52 a year. It was competent, however, the reply added, for the soldier to divert to his mother his full allotment, which could, if necessary, be increased to 5s 6d a day, or £lOO 7s 6d a year, which could give her a gross income" of £l7O 12s 6d.

“The net result of our representations to headquarters is simply that the board determines to disagree with us on how much a soldier is entitled to live on,” said Mr M. A. Richards. “That, I think, is the total of our efforts and I still adhere to my opinion that the board is wrong.”

He objected, Mr Richards, added, to the board’s apparent attitude that a man away lighting for his home and country could be expected “to live on the smell of an oily rag.” To his mind the board was “taking up a very niggardly and wretched attitude,” which would not encourage men to join up or to look forward to service.

The president (Mr D. W. Russell) said that he would not like to say that the association's protest h; d not had any result. A great deal of publicity had been achieved and when a body such as the board knew that its actions were liable to be criticised by an organisation such as the association one was 'more likely to see justice done and the men’s interests watched.

Mr E. Orchard moved that the circular be received and that the executive was satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of Mr W. E. Leadley, a member of the board.

Mr J. S. Chisholm: Is Mr Leadley in possession •of all the facts of the case, because no one can take up a case without being in possession of the facts? I think that most of these people on the board are old diggers, are they not? Surely they would be sympathetic to men away fighting for their country. That is what makes me ask—have the actual facts been supplied? Mr A. E. Haynes said that it was not so much the placing of the facts that he thought necessary. The important point here was the viewpoint taken towards the facts. The board apparently considered that when a man went away he should allot ali possible to his dependants.

“I think it is in this that we differ from the board’s attitude,” he added. “Our attitude. I think, is that a man is justified in putting—almost in fact that it is his duty to put—a little aside for when he comes back. It is the different viewpoint that is the trouble. If the board takes the attitude they appear to take, then it seems to me that we will get nowhere. It almost makes one feel that it is useless to continue representations to the board.”

Mr Richards moved “that we still consider that the particular case we. referred to has not received that sympathetic treatment by the board that could be expected of it, and that The matter be placed in the hand of Mr Leadley to carry on further representations.”

The motion was seconded by Mr J. D. Godfrey and was passed without further discussion.