REPATRIATION

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 225, 21 September 1940, Page 5 (Supplement)

REPATRIATION

Ex-Servicemen's Corner

STANDING as we are in the _ very Midst of the supreme effort on which , the freedom of Britain depends, and so unshakeably confident am -I of this being maintained, I return again to the subject of the post-war welfare of the men from New Zealand who will play their part, not only in this, buf the preservation of the freedom^of the worlds—the next greatest task after the prosecution of the war itself. By "TROOPER" From remarks recently published, it would appear that some confusion exists as to the motive and means adopted and to be adopted. There also is unmistakable evidence in these remarks of misconception as to the part that the organisation of ex-servicemen and women, with their long years of intimate experience in this work, can play. These organisations are charged with. "mixing the present with the past." No such misconception should exist. They arc very much concerned because of their experience since the World War—a very different thing.

No employer seeking those to whom he would entrust the carrying out of a specific and difficult task employs other than those with practical experience of the work in which they . are to be engaged. As a sensible man, he realises that an ounce of practice is still worth more than a ton of theory. If we agree on this, we must also agree that in the difficult task of post-war care of exservicemen and women most, if not all, of those engaged should come from those with experience, gained through many years.

Further, these organisations, the Returned Soldiers' Associations, the ExServicewomen's and Ex-Army Nursing Sisters' Associations, are the recognised official channels through which the voicc of their membere are heard. That these may not include all of the potential members within their Tanks in no way depreciates their official status. Representative appointed by them to other organisations carry not responsibility to themselves as individuals, but responsibility to thousands of members, bringing with them to the body to which they are accredited the concerted opinion of those thousands, and, above all, sympa-

Representation Of RSA. On Patriotic Bodies

thetic understanding—understanding of the psychology of those with whom they will have to deal, and understanding of the quality and degree of the assistance, required; very important factors, and not to, be lightly overlooked, for it is reasonable to suggest that possession of them must prove of immense value over any theoretical knowledge, however sincere the mind and will behind it.

For more than twenty years ex-ser-vicemen and women have devoted unsparingly time to dealing with the welfare and problems confronting their less fortunate fellows of 1914-1918. Through their voluntary and unostentatious efforts, much that is good has been accomplished. Much of this assistance, so far as finance is concerned, has come from canteen profits, from money earned in their own war-time canteens. More has come from a generous public who, each year, renews its pledge of confidence in them by the liberal degree in which it responds to their appeals for assistance. These organisations have played an honourable' and wholly unselfish part. To say less than this is to do them a grave injustice.

These official ex-service organisations have now opened their ranks to their comrades of this war. The R.S.A. has quite definitely decided, and rightly, to look upon them as "younger brothers." Therefore it is not only natural, but incumbent on the U.S.A. to hold itself responsible as trustee for these men. And who better qualified T Returned soldiers sitting on patriotic and repatriation committees, and, generally speaking, without practical up-to-date knowledge of the problem (because of the lack of that essential personal contact) and "not appointed in any representative capacity," can hardly be expected to consider themselves trustees in the same light as the R.5.A.,.0r as capable of being such. Let us be quite fair in this.

There is no occasion for surprise that these associations now asking for greater representation on the Auckland Provincial Patriotic Council and the Auckland Metropolitan Patriotic Committee should do so. Rather it is a matter of surprise that they are refused. Indeed, it might be said: Why cannot theee organisations be given the task in its entirety? After all, (his would be no more than the tribute due to them for their years of faithful service, and the fact that they

do officially represent the men and women who served their country in its hour of need, and are to-day doing everything possible to help. To cast them aside and suggest, as has been done, that they are confusing "the past with the present," is no compliment; certainly not the one their altruistic motives deserve.

It has been pointed out repeatedly, and carried out with exemplary success in Britain: this second World War and its aftermath requires the very best that experience can secure. It is all very well to say: "We have a duty to look after the men who come back." This, unfortunately, •is not a new statement. It has been heard before, so long ago that for more than twenty years exservice organisations have been seeking a reasonable measure of its interpretation. Most naturally, I think, these now seek to have themselves in a position where the best possible can be done toward a really creditable job this time. Otherwise—what value "is experience?

And let us not forget the potential danger should we neglect to make our post-war care of soldiers, sailors and airmen and service-women worthy of them. In contrast to the world of 1918, wc. have to-day the menace of strange creeds, with their attraction for so -many disappointed with the promise of "a better world;" these creeds which since, then and to-day are being preached in every corner, under many guises. It will, I fear, be very necessary to provide something more substantial than a "repatriation fund," or "for the relief of sick, wounded and distressed"—however large we may think these. Work is still the best antidote for many ills; honest work at reasonable pay. For those physically or mentally unable to work we must have something more than a "dole" from these funds. The prospect attending failure to recognise it is, I think, not one we can afford to ignore.

That ex-service organisations should have to press their claims for post-war responsibilities is something of an anachronism. Their experience, intimate and personal, most certainly qualifies their claims as being just, and entitled to more than the barest minimum of responsibility, somewhat grudgingly given. Some greater acknowledgment than this is due to the official representative bodies of those who serve their country, especially in a task for which everything proclaims them as qualified.