CIVIL OBLIGATIONS.

Northern Advocate, 9 December 1916, Page 4

CIVIL OBLIGATIONS.

AND MILITARY DUTY

AN INTERESTING COMPARISON,

Jn view of tho rapidly growing necessity for making increased provision to enable men entering the New Zealand reinforcements to meet their civil liabilities, and the declaration by the Hon. James Allen, Acting: Prime Minister, that "the circumstances existing in the Old Country and New Zealand are not, however, analogous,'' a resume of the British provisions ami a comparison with those ruling in New Zealand are instructive (says the Christchurch "Star."') In May last, after the passage of the Mi Service (Compulsion) Bill, the Imperial Government at Once made provision for enabling both single and married soldiers (including those already serving) to discharge their civil liabilities by stipulating that in addition to the prevailing pay and separation allowances, they might receive special State relief up to the extent of £2 per week. The obligations in respect, of which it was laid down that such assistance might bo granted were those arising in tho United Kingdom in respect of: —■ (b) Rent. (b) Interest and instalments payable in respect of loans, including mort- j gages. (c) Instalments payable under agreements for the purchase of business premises, a dwelling-house, furniture and the like. (d) Kates and taxes. (c) Insurance premiums. (f) School fees. The result was to place the British soldier with civil obligations in a very much better position than his New Zealand comrade-in-arms. This will be seen when the rates of pay and separation allowance and of special relief are compared. The combined weekly pay and separation allowances of the British private (pay 7s per week) and of the New Zealand private (pay 35s per week) are as follows:— New Great With Zealand Britain s. d. s. d. Wife only 42 0 16 0 Wife and 1 child .... 47 3 21 0 Wife and 2 children . 52 (j 24 13 Wife and 3 children . 57 9 26 d Wife and 4 children . (>.", 0 2S (i Wife and 5 children . 08 :; 30 6 Each extra child Nothing 2 0 In contrasting the British totals, however, it has to be remembered that the cost of Jiving in Great Britain is estimated to be -o per cent, cheaper than in New Zealand, and the British figures therefore, should be increased by that amount. That is the position regarding the married men only. The British provisions are for equally liberal separation allowances being paid to the dependents of single men. The New Zealand provisions, on the other hand, only allow Is a day to be paid to the widowed mother of the single man, provided it is shown that she is wholly dependent on him. Thus in many eases the single man with dependents is better off in the British Army than in the New Zealand Army. The position of the British soldier, particularly that of the single man, is still further improved when the special relief he may receive up to £2 per week extra is added. Taking the case of the married man only, the following table is instructive as showing the highest amount that may be paid to the New Zealand soldier as compared with the British soldier under existing scales: — With Zealand Britain. New Great s. d. s. d. With only . . . . 12 ° ■'$ 0 Wife and I child . . 47 3 til v Wife and 2 children .. 32 6 Hi 6 Wife and 3 children . 37 '.) t>t> (> Wife and 4 children . 03 0 OS 6 Wife and 5 children OS 3 70 0 Each extra child Nothing 2 U It will be noticed that iv m> case does a New Zealand private ro-eive what his British comrade may revive, even although the New Zealander may be a married man with a wife and five or more children. It is only fair to point out. however, that the amounts given in the first column ire what New Zealand so'ci.'ers do i-eeeive, while the totai amounts given in the socmmul column are what British soldiers may receive, the "may" in tho Bmish case being only ipplma'i'c to tli'. 1 special relief ih.it may be granteJ. up to t!2 per week. Tho comparison, :ievertho'f'ss. has to be considered in relation to the ■jheapor cost of living at Home, which make the F'rit'sh figures (he noe remarkable. The contrast is stiM great er when applied to the single man with dependents or their obligations. In New Zealand single men, excepting ihose who may be the sole support jf i widowed mother, receive no sepiira»ion allowances or special rel'ef in resptvf of any consideration whatever.