SCALE OF GRATUITIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17274, 25 September 1919, Page 8

SCALE OF GRATUITIES.

NEW ZEALAND PROPOSALS. COMPARISON WITH CANADA. EFFECT OF ALLOWANCES. [BY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER.] WELLINGTON. Wednesday. A further elaboration of his comparison of the proposed New Zealand war gratuities with those paid in Canada was given in the House of Representatives this afternoon by the Minister for Defence. At the outset he explained that the maximum term for which the gratuity could be received was 4 years 278 days, and not 255 days, as he had said previously. Sir James Allen said he wished to refer to several questions that had been raised relating to gratuities and to place before the House some comparisons between the Now Zealand rates of gratuity and the Canadian rates. The men who had served on the Philomel would receive the same gratuity as members of the Expeditionary Force. . . , The men who had spent periods in hospital in New Zealand after d-sembarkation were covered, in his opinion, by the; provision that a minimum gratuity re" lo months should be paid, whatever the date of disembarkation, but if this provision did not do full justice to all the men he would be prepared to make a suggestion that he hoped would get over the dimculty. He had been in consultation with his officers on the point. The Minister for Defence proceeded to make a. comparison between the proposed New Zealand and the Canadian rates. Hequoted first some figures that he had already given in a slightly different form snowing the Canadian gratuity to a single man as against the New Zealand gratuity pius New Zealand extra pay, privilege, leave, and railway concessions, as follows — " „ „ Canadian N Z. N Z. Period. Gratuity. Gratuity. Total. ££ £ „ 11 Months . . 43 15 0 25 2 6 45 2 6 2:5 Month's . . 58 6 8 S3 10 0 80 10 0 3,'. Months . . 72 IS 4 79 17 6 115 1 3 % Moruha .. 87 10 0 107 6 6 150 2 9 4 Years *!* 87 10 0 130 „ . 173 13 1 days .. 87 10 O 130 8 6 17S 13 1 Married Men Without Children. The Canadian Government, continued the Minister, paid a separation allowance to the wife, but not to the children of a soldier, whereas New Zealand paid separation allowance to both wife and child. In making a comparison between the Canadian and New Zealand payments to the married private without children. the Minister credited Canada with an advantage in the amount of separation allowance and New Zealand with extra pay, privilege leave, railway concessions, and separation allowance during the period of privilege leave. His comparison was as follows: — Period. Canada. New Zealand £ £ 11 Months . . 76 16 8 49 6 1 23 Months . . . . 98 2 6 84 5 8 85 Months . . . . 114 4 2 119 5 a 47 Months . . .. 130 2 10 154 6 9 4 Years 278 days .. 132 8 3 183 17 1 The comparison became much mora favourable to New Zealand if there were children to be taken into account. The Children's Allowance. The Canadian soldier received no separation allowance for children, whereas the New Zealand soldier received an additional sum for each child on the following scale:Period. Each child. ~,£ a d 11 Months 25 2 6 23 Months 52 10 0 35 Months 79 17 6 47 Months 107 6 6 4 Years 278 days . . . . 130 8 6 The difference in the total emolument of a married private with children in Canada and in New Zealand was shown in the following figures, the comparison being in favour of New Zealand in all cases except the first sum in the first column. — One Two Three Child. Children. Children£bd£s d £ i. d 11 Months 6 1 0» 36 18 5 54 111 23 Months 40 15 2 95 7 2 149 19 2 35 Months 87 7 0 169 0 0 250 la 7 47 Months 133 12 6 243 011 352 1!) 5 •Decrease. Financial Assistance Scheme. The Minister added that, in addition to the moneys already mentioned, financial assistance had been granted to New Zealand soldiers in cases of hardship as from January 16, 1917. The average annual payment per applicant had been £30. Canada had no schemes of financial assistance. New Zealand's financial assistance was a gift to the soldiers, and did not require to be repaid.

The estimated total of the wax service gratuity in Canada was roughly £20.000,000. The New Zealand total was slightly more than £6,000,000. The Canadian gratuity on a population basis ought to amount to £42,000,000 to equal the New Zealand liability. The Minister mentioned that a home service gratuity was included in the Canadian total, but not in the New Zealand total. If this amount "were deducted the comparison would be increasingly in New Zealand's favour.

The Minister, in conclusion, stated what New Zealand had done for the soldiers under the repatriation and pensions schemes.