WAR VETERANS' BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22709, 23 October 1935, Page 7

WAR VETERANS' BILL

SOLDIERS' WISHES MET REPLY TO DEMOCRAT LEADER (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 22. Mr W. Perry, M.L.C., president of the New Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association, to-day said that the statement reported as having been made by the Democrat leader (Mr T. C. A. Hislop) at Invercargill last night as to the effect of the War Veterans' Allowances Bill would tend to cause misconception as to the provisions of the Bill. Mr Hislop had said that every returned man who broke down in health had to prove that his incapacity was definitely due to war service. "That," Mr Perry • said, "was the position before the Bill was introduced, and it was the very position the Bill was designed to cure and does cure." Under the Bill, if a returned soldier who served in a unit in an actual engagement with the enemy was now suffering from physical or mental incapacity, and was unfit for permanent employment, he and his wife and children were entitled to allowances under the Bill. The Bill would meet the very cases Mr Hislop said it would not meet. Mr Perry added, with regard to Mr. Hislop's statement that there had been a long delay on the part of the Government in introducing this Bill, that he wanted all returned soldiers to know that the first request to the Government by the New Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association to bring down such a Bill was made as late as July 9, 1934.

"CONTRARY TO FACT" CRITICISM BY MR HARGEST DEMOCRAT LEADER'S REPLY (Per United Press Association) INVERCARGILL, October 22. Mr J. Hargest, M.P., speaking over the telephone from Wellington to-day to the News, expressed surprise at the statement made here last night by Mr T. C. A. Hislop, leader of the Democrat Party, on the War Veterans' Allowance Bill. " The statement that ex-servicemen, before being eligible for the allowance, have to prove war disability is contrary to fact, and Mr Hislop is either badly informed dr wilfully misrepresenting the case," Mr Hargest said. " The Bill provides that any ex-soldier of any age who was actively engaged against the enemy and now is found to be unfit for permanent employment is entitled to an allowance of £1 weekly, with 15s for his wife and 5s for each of his children under the age of 16 years, with a maximum of £143 per annum. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to suggest that attributability has to be proved. In fact, the whole object of the legislation is to enable the burnt-out veteran to obtain an allowance without having to prove that his condition is due to war service, and the statement as reported is regrettable, especially if it is the cause of the slightest concern in the minds of men who have broken down in health as the result of their service to their country." When this statement was referred to Mr Hislop he said that if Mr Hargest had taken the trouble to read his statement with regard to returned soldiers he would, have seen that his statement on the War Veterans Bill was to the effect that it had been too long delayed and had been brought down just before the election. " The War Veterans Bill as I understand it," said Mr Hislop, " does not definitely state that the onus is on the Government to prove that a returned soldier's condition is ' not' due to war service. In fact, under the Act this position is not definitely remedied, as Mr Hargest suggests. In view of the harsh treatment that has been meted out to returned soldiers, I venture to suggest that they will have just as great difficulty in obtaining their pensions or proper consideration as in the past. Actually the War Veterans Bill is among many death-bed repentances of the Government and it a most blatant example of touting for votes. A complete reply to Mr Hargest is in the facts, and returned soldiers over the whole country know that they have been unfairly treated by the Government. My proposals are drawn up in order to remedy the injustices that undoubtedly exist."