SOLDIERS ALLOWANCES.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 16093, 30 March 1918, Page 6

SOLDIERS ALLOWANCES.

A TARANAKI CASE.

The Evening Post of March 15 contained the following paragraph*;—A Taranaki Second Division reservist, on learning last year of the ’ increased separation allowance and the assistance given hy the Einaacial Assistance Board for rent, insurance, etc., volunteered for service. Tic has two children, and going into camp in November he received his pay of .3s a day, Is a day .separation allowance for his wife, and 9d each for the children. Ho was able to leave his wife in all £2 a week, and from the Financial Assistance Board he received an allowance for real of 12s 6d a week, making in all £2. 12s Gd, which he thought to improve by another 17s 6d a week when the new separation scale came into force in January. His wife, howcvci, has now received advice that the 12s 6d for house rent Ims been stopped because, in the words of the departmental circular, “in your jireseiit circumstances you can meet the obligation without any undue hardship.’’ (lornmenting on this case the News says:— “The wife now finds herself in practically no better position than, before, though anticipating relief when the new scale of allowances came into fuicc. This is noVan isolated case. It is going on ever/wbere. The Financial Assistance Board is certainly saving money lor the Government, but its action is not likely to cause contentment amongst the married soldier or reservist who had been looking forward to the relief the increased allowances would afford or to lessen the anxiety of the already sorely tried wife in her tussle With the increasing cost of living problem.

On if arch AS Sir James Allen wrote to the Post as follows; — Sir,—My attention has been drawn to an article that appeared in tho Evening Post of the loth inst. relative to a Taranaki Second Division reservist whoso grant of financial assistance has been rescinded by tbc. Soldiers’ Financial Assistance Board.

The Taranaki Daily Mews is alleged to have reported:—‘'The wife now finds herself in practically no better position than before. . . This is not an isolated ease. It is going on everywhere - .” The ease could he identified as that of a corporal who applied for financial assistance on July U, 1917, to meet rent—£ls2 10s per annum. Dependents were shown as wife and two children, aged three years and eleven months respectively. The only other obligation was fire insurance, yearly premium 7s 6d. The full rent was authorised by the hoard, leaving tho wife in receipt of: Allotment 3s fxi per day. separation allowance Ts per day, children's allowance* Is 6d per day—6s per day, or £lO9 10s per annum.

Under the new allowances, the wife’s income was increased on ‘January 1 by £45 12. s 6d, and the board, after reviewing the ease, rescinded its grant of £32 10s, leaving a net increase in the wife’s income of £l3 2s fid per annum. The statement to the effect that “tho wife now finds herself in practically no better position than before” is. therefore, incorrect, for she has benefited to the extor t of os per week. The wife’s military income amounts to £155 2s fid per annum for the maintenance of herself and two young children.

lt_ should be noticed that the reservist’s civil income was £IBO per annum, whereas tho combined military income of himself and wife amounts to £2OO 15s per „ nmim exclusive of tho husband’s food and clothing. With reference to the further alleged statement; “'This is not an isolated case. It is going! on everywhere.” The Taranaki Daily News has been asked to submit any other cases that have come under its notice.

You will readily see that a good deal of Henecessary and unjust criticism will arise if particulars of applications for financial assistance are published as supplied by the applicants themselves, ami, in support of my contention, the foZogoing Facts of the case in question amply remove anv cause for complaint on the part of "this reservist.—l am. etc., J. ALLEY, Alinister of Defence. March 28.