DEMILITARISATION AND DEMOBILISATION

NZ Truth, Issue 744, 20 September 1919, Page 5

DEMILITARISATION AND DEMOBILISATION

A Coraplaiat oi Unfair Treatment

Are Returned Men Being Cheated of Their Privileges?

Towards the end of July, General Richardson decided to demilitarise all the men m home service staff work. He communicated his intentions at a gathering- at Base Records which he addressed, and expressly promised that the demilitarisation of the men would not m any way prejudice the existing rights of any with, regard to leave and incidental privileges. Base Records staff was' accordingly demilitarised. Subsequently a proclamation appeared m the Government Gazette demobilising the whole of the returned Expeditionary Force men m a body. Expeditionary Force men "who were serving m a home service capacity were not, however, granted a certificate of discharge such as had been granted previously. Instead they were given a document known as FORM D.R. 47. This document purports to grant "leave without pay until further- orders," and is "only to be issued to soldiers on termination of actual employment m home service." Now it is contended, and Tightly so, m this paper's opinion, that the man who has been away to the front, although he has been taken on the strength of home service since his return, is entitled to the same treatment as those returned men who took their discharge immediately they got back. They received their 28 days' leave on full pay and other privileges such as their travelling warrant. Why should there be any differentiation? The position is further complicated m the case of men who have been away, been on home service, and have now been demilitarised. They are now purely civil clerks, that is, those who have* been kept on by the Defence Department, yet they cannot get their proper discharge,, but are instead designated "soldiers on leave without pay, until further orders," without any privileges whatever, privileges which are surely due to them for the honorable war service they performed. Yet when they apply for same to the Pay Office they are told forsooth that THEY CANNOT RECEIVE IT because/they have not got their final discharge. "Truth" sees m the above position a matter which requires immediate attention * and redress. The form "D.R. 47" has already been submitted for the opinion of a leading legal luminary, and his reply is that it is a worthless scrap of paper, entirely ille- j gal m fact, and that the Defence authorities have no right to issue same. . , , It has been the invariable practice that returned Expeditionary Force men whose services were no longer required, and who were not m need of medical treatment, to receive on disembarkation 2S days' leave on full i pay on the last day of which their final discharge was dated. In the earlier stages of the war the period of leave was 21 days, but it was subsequently increased to 28 days. In the case of men who required medical treatment the leave terminating with discharge was deferred until they no longer required such treatment. This J leave was only refused AS A PUNISHMENT for men whoso conduct was, decidedly bad. Quite a number of Expeditionary men, however, on their ! re,turn, instead of being discharged, were immediately taken on the strength of Ease Records m a home service capacity, their leave and other privileges being allegedly merely deferred, until the termination of their home service. Until very recently these men had no qualms about this long- deferred leave, but certain happenings have caused them to sit up and take notice, for a rather peculiar position has cropped up.