PAY AND PENSIONS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16375, 1 November 1916, Page 6

PAY AND PENSIONS

The explanation which has now been given by the Minister for Defence should relievo the minds of all invalid soldiers of any misgivings regarding the effect of their discharge from the Expeditionary Force. The decision of the Medical Board to recommend the discharge of a dozen men now receiving treatment in the Domain Annexe was criticised by the Returned Soldiers' Association on the ground that these men were not fit to leave the hospital, but this view was apparently based on the mistaken presumption that the findings of the Medical Board implied the discharge of the men from both the Forces and the hospital. It is reasonable and logical that the Defence Department should regard a disabled soldier from the military point of view. If the Department is satisfied that a soldier, owing to his injuries, cannot return to active service, it is surely justified in discharging him from the force. Such a course should not, and in practice does not, impose any hardship upon the soldier. The Defence Department resigns its responsibility for his future welfare, only because other Departments of State are ready to take its place. The Government has repeatedly declared that every soldier is entitled to its care until his health has been as fully restored as medical skill and patient nursing can accomplish. As head of the Department entrusted with this responsibility, Mr. Russell has stated that any soldier who subsequently requires further treatment, owing to the effects of injuries or sickness on active service, will receive the same care as before. There is no reason for supposing that this promise has not been generously fulfilled, nor for presuming that the Health Department is in any degree less sympathetic towards returned soldiers than the Defence Department. The contention that discharge from the forces involves material disadvantage can hardly be established. The Returned Soldiers' Association has cited cases which would presumably be entitled to the full pension, and they may be accepted for a general view of the question. The maximum pension for a private soldier is 35s a week, exactly the same amount as the military pay, so that the single man is no worse off after his discharge. The married man, granted the full pension, will actually be in better circumstances. The pension for his wife would be 12a Cd a week, as against the separation allowance of 7s, and this compensates the difference between the allowance of 5s 3d for each child of the active soldier and the pension of ss. The maximum pension for a private soldier and his family is £3 12s 6d ; the aggregate of military pay and separation allowances of a soldier with live children is £3 8s 3d. The difference is proportionately greater in the case of smaller families. It might be argued that the invalid soldier residing at his own home, receives an additional " messing allowance" of 2s a day; but Mr. Allen has explained that hospital treatment is available for the men as long as they require it, and the Returned Soldiers' Association, being satisfied that "discharge" does not mean discharge rfom hospital, will surely not

combat the Minister's view that " there is a time when a man should . go on pension." In its resolution on the subject, the Claims Board urged that there should be no interval between the last payment by the Defence Department and the first by the Pensions Board. This requires no discussion. It has been stated. that the Pensions Board deals with. applications within a fortnight of j receipt. In the case of invalid soldiers, even that delay is unnecessary. A simple co-operation between the Departments concerned would secure the automatic transfer of the sol- j dier's name from the military pay | sheet to the pensions list, immediately on his discharge, and neither I Department will be justified in claiming that the machine is working smoothly until such an arrangement is perfected.