MARRIED ALLOWANCE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 11928, 23 October 1919, Page 7

MARRIED ALLOWANCE.

TAIHAPE OORRESPONDENT’S REMARKS.

AND MINISTER'S EXPLANATION.

Our Taihape correspondent made some scathing remarks on the 11th mst. with reference to Government payments to soldiers’ dependents. Mr E. Newman, M.P“, sent the out-

ting to the Hon. the Minister of Defence, and he has received the following reply:— “With reference to your letter of ' the 14th inst. enclosing cutting from the Rangitikei Adovcate of,the 11th idem in which the question of retrospective married allowance is dealt with, it is apparent that the writer is guided by a wholly erroneous interpretation of the conditions on which the retrospective grant is based. At the outset the assumption's made that the retrospective allowance forms portion of the soldier’s pay and that it can therefore be claimed by him as a matter of right. In point of fact, as with the ordinary separation allowance, the grant is purely one made by the Government to the wife of a soldier or to the guardian of his motherless children to bring the smaller allowance, which she has already received, up to the full rate of 3s a day. In a general way no person other than one of the two mentioned ia thus entitled to receive the moneys, and neither the soldier nor any other interested relative has either moral or legal claim upon them. In a case where the wife or original allottee is deceased and*there are children to be considered, it has been the cusotm to remit the allowance through some responsible person or society for disbursement for the sole benefit of those dependents. Where, however, there are no children, the primary object of the grant, as set out above, is , effectually defeated; and as the payment is not intended to directly benefit the soldier personally in any respect, the allowance is automatically cancelled, and cannot be paid over to anyone. Presumably this ruling was given in the present instance. I fail to see, however, that any question of “technical points” is involved: the matter is purely one of regulations., which have framed only after full consideration of the main principle—as indicated above —underlying the issue of all Government grants of this nature: and it is neither uninequitable to apply the same" principle to the retrospective married allowance. Provision is made in certain circumstances for the application of such portion of t he retropsective allowance —or similar grant—as is required to meet funeral and sick bed expenses attendant upon the death of the soldier’s wife. It is difficult to decide in this respect a purely supposititious case, but if the soldier concerned in this instance will forward to tbe Officer in Charge War Expenses, Wellington, the receipts for these payments, the question of reimbursement to the person who met the expense will be con sidered. —Yours faithfully, J. ALLEN, Minister of defence.