SOLDIERS' PENSIONS COMPARED

Nelson Evening Mail, 3 August 1916, Page 7

SOLDIERS' PENSIONS COMPARED

BRITAIN'S EXAMPLE.

SPECIAL GRANTS TO SOLDIERS

In reply to Mr G. W. Forbes in the House of Representatives on Saturday regarding the relict' granted soldiers in the British Army up to £2 per week in respect of rent, life insurance, etc., the Prime Minister stated that the soldier in England was paid 7s per week, and could not meet any payments, while the New Zealand soldier received 555. Pie added : "Every assistance would be given to men who he'd property through, the Government Advances to Workers. Assistance would also be. given in a case where hardship was reported owing t-o * private liabilities. lie could not tell them exactly how this would be manag-V fd. but for a verv similar purpose the Finance Minister had set aside a sum of £100,000."' lir making the comparative statementregarding pay, the Prime Minister, envs the Post, -omitted to include the separation allowances, which place the British soldier'in a- still more favourable position than his New Zealand comrade. With the latest New Zealand revision they

The combined pay (at 7s a. week for the British private and 35s a week for the New Zealand private) and separation allowances compare a's under: New Great

In contrastincr the British totals, however, it ■has Lo be remembered that the cost of living in Great Britain is estimated to be 25 per cent cheaper tha.i in New Zealand, and the British figures, therefore, should be increased by that amount. That is the position regardinge the married man only. The British provisions provide 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, pro-

rates.

Tided it is shown that she is wholly "de- ; pendent on him. Thus in many cases the single man -with dependents is better off in the British Army than in the New Zealand Army. Now the British Government has placed the British soldier with, obligations in an infinitely bettor position than, his New Zealand comrade by providing that over and above his pay and separation allowances he may be granted, relief up to £2 per week in respect of ' (a) rent, (b) interest and: instalments 'payable in respect of loans, including mortgages, (c) instalments payable under agreements for the purchase of fousinass premises, a dwell in [/-house, furniture and the like, (d) rates and taxes, (e) 'nsnrance premiums, (f) school fees. This applies to both single and married men. Taking the case of the married man only iiie following table is instructive as showing the highest amount that may, bo paid to the New Zealand soldier as compared with the British soldier under exr

It is only fair to point out, however, that the, amounts given in the first column are what New. Zealand soldiers do receive, while the total amounts given in the second column. are what Britsh. solders may receive, the "mav," iri the British case, being only applicable To the special relief that may be granted up to £2 per week. The comparison, nevertheless, has to be considered in rtlation to the eheaoer cost of living at. Home, which makes the British figure's the more remarkable. The contrast is still greater when tapplied' to . tile single man with dependants or other obligations.

The "unfavourable comparison, to New Zealand is. of course, altered somewhat by the Prime Minister's announcement on Saturday night, but to what extent cannot be stated .until the Government; like the British Government, submits its schedule rates of relief. It remains to be added that the new British provisions were announced to Parliament in connection with the introduction of tb ,v Military Service Bill imposing general conscription. The New Zealand Government also recently"' decided that ''no married man with more than three'.children would be enlisted except" for speciii reasons." • ' > . • ■

compare as iollow :— New Great Zealand. A Britain <* d Wife ■onlv S. CI. 7 0 9 0 .. and 1 child .. 12 0 14 0 .. .. 2 children . .. 17 0 17 6 .. 3 children . .. 22 0 19 6 ., 4 children . .. 27 0 21 6 ., 5 children . .. 32 0 23 6 Each extra child .. 2 0

Zealand. Brit; im With s. d. s. d w ife onlv 420 16 0 .. and 1 chi'.d 47 0 2L 0 ;>ndi 2 children 52 0 24 6 si ihIi 3 children57 0 26 n .. and 4 children 62 0 23 6 ami 5 children 67 0 30 6 Kich extra child - — 2 0

istiiiir scales : — New Great Zealand. Britain. With s. d. s. d. Wife orflv 42 0 56 0 ,. and 1 child 47 0 61 0 ., and 2 children 52 0 64 6 ,. and .> children 57 0 .66 6 .. and 4 children 62 0 68. 5 and 5 .children 67 -0 70 ,6 Each extra child 2 0