SOLDIERS' PAY.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 April 1916, Page 6

SOLDIERS' PAY.

CLAIMS OF SOLDIERS' WIVES. NEW ZEALAND LAGS BEHIND. (From Our Own -Correspondent.) Wellington, April 17. When the Minister for Defence was answering a complaint regarding the pay of married soldiers, the other day, lie said that the Government could not differentiate between various classes of men in fixing the rates of pay. His argument may be sound as far as the soldiers themselves are concerned, but it does not touch the real point of contention—the separation allowance. Now that Parliament is about to meet, there seems to >-e need for a Married Men's Union in New Zealand, on the lines of the organisation already formed in thr Mother Country, tc urge upon the Government the claims of soldiers' wives, New Zealand's separation allowance is the lowest in the F-mpire. outside the United Kingdom. The New Zealand Government pays the wife o£ a soldier 7s a week, with 3s Cd a week for each child up to four. The amount can be made to suffice, when supplemented by an allocation of most of the soldier's pay, and hundreds of married men are serving in the Forces to-day, ' while their wives exercise the necessary economies at home. But why should this country be less generous than Canada, which pays the wife" £1 a week, or South Africa, which has a. graduated scale starting at 14s a week for the wife alone and rising according to the number of children at the rate of something like 5s a week per child? Several married men at present in Trentham camp have discussed this matter with your correspondent, and have indicated that they feel strongly. They will serve, whether they are paid adequately or not, since the call of duty has reached them, but they do not believe that they are getting a square deal. The married private with a wife and two children to support can allocate 4s a day from his pay, and the Government will pay 14s a week separation allowance, making a total income of 42s per week for the three dependants. The soldier will be left with Is a day for himself, and when lie returns from the front there will be no accumulated pay waiting for him. The unmarried private, on the other hand, will receive 2a a day while on service, and a further sum of 3s a day will accumulate as deferred pay, assuming that he has made no allocation. When he receives his discharge after say a year's service he will have a sum of over £SO to his credit, while his married comrade will be penniless. "I would be content," said one soldier, "if the Government paid my wife 20s a week separation allowance, the Canadian rate, plus the present 3s 6d for. each of the children. There happen to be two in my case, so that the total separation allowance would be 27s a week. Then if she had 2a 6d a day from my pay, her income, would be brought up to 44a Gd, and atfer keeping Is a day for myself I could allow Is 6d day to accumulate as deferred pay. That" is not very much, but there would be something in hand when I returned. The present arrangements leave no margin at all." Ministerial statements, it may be mentioned, have suggested that fhe Government is depending upon the enlistment of a certain number of married men in order to save the voluntary system from wreck. The Defence authorities, moreover, make no secret of their belief that they must, have married men for another reason—in order to secure a leavening of age and experience among the young fellows. If the Government really did not need married men, the logal course would' be to pay no separation allowance at all. But as a matter of fact the separation allowance has recently been increased by the payment of fid a day for children. Tim married soldiers want another move to be made in the same direction. OFFICERS' KIT, ALLOWANCE. The Defence Minister, by the way, is still insisting that the allowance of £25 made to officers for their kit is adequate. When he was approached by a deputation on the. subject to-day he quoted,some official figures to show that the required articles could be bought for about £24 in the case of the infantry officer. The amount of the allowance it> Australia and the United Kingdom is £52, and the experience of New Zealand officers shows clearly that the £25 is not sufficient, whatever official figures may say. The official kit is too small and the articles described are too cheap. Possibly an officer would be able ,to comply with the exact letter of the regulations if he spent jio more than the Minister indicates, out his equipment would not bo adequate and it would require to be supplemented, at his own cost, directly he to Egypt. The Defence Department is strangely obstinate over matters of this kind, it is ready to spend money very fast in many directions, but it becomes positively parsimonious when questions of pay and allowances are under consideration.