PAY AND PENSIONS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3141, 20 July 1917, Page 6

PAY AND PENSIONS

SECOND DIVISION DEMANDS INCREASES FAVOURED i - f PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES > The Second Division League's Conference;' now sitting in Wellington,, had on its order paper various remits dealing ■with the questions of pay Mid 'pensions for soldiers and soldiers' dependnnts. On AVednesday a committee was set np to go through these remits / and make a recommendation to the conference. • Yesterday tho committee 'brought dow:n tho following proposals:— Pay of Soldiers. Jive shillings per day as for First Division. Hinority report, I'eatherstou and Canterbury dissenting in favour of 6s. per day, of which Is. per' day to increase allotment on ac- , count of increased cost of living. Separation allowance to wife or sole dependant, ss. per day. Minority report, Southland, Otago, South Canterbury and Geraldmo'dissent- ■ ing. . To children", Is. 6d. per day for each child. To motherless child, 2s. 6d. per day. Extra allojyanee to wife (chronic invalid); lfls. per week extra. Extra allowance to child (chronic invalid), ss. per week eitra. Pensions: To widow with children, £2 lGs. To nidow without children or sole dependant, <£2 ss. 6d. (i.e., 50 per cent, reduction on allotment during period of husband's service). ' To child, 10s. Gd. per week. To motherless child, 17s. 6d. per week. Extra allowance to wife (chronic invalid), Ids. per week. Extr{i allowance to child (chronic invalid), ss. per week (no age limit), v Totally Disabled Soldiers' Pensions. Single or married soldier, £2 per week of all ranks. ' Vife or sole dependant, .£1 per week ■{to be increased to M 16s. 6d. on death of soldier, in case of widow •with children; or to .£2 ss. Gd. if without children; each child 10s. Gd. k per week). Motherless children, 17s. Gd. per week. Chronic invalid (wife), 10s. per week extra. , Chronic invalid (child), ss. per week extra. ' Age limit of benefits to ohildren—males 17, females 20. The committee revising remits comI- prised delegates from Wellington, Stratford, Manakan, Featherston, Masterton, _ Canterbury, South Canterbury, Geraldine, . Otago; and Southland. Tho report is unanimous on all questions except the . two instances in which minority reports . are presented. Dr. W. Fergus Pnterson, chairman of tho committee, moved the adoption of ..the first' paragraph of the committee's report. Mr. Holme 3 (Featberstrfn) moved as an amendment that a soldier's pay should be 10s., instead of ss. per day. He urged in favour of his amendment that the ■ cost of living had increased. / - Mr. Gilchrist (Gisborne) -seconded the amendment. The purchasing power of ; money must be taken into account. !Mr. Toogood (Featherston) said he came tfrom a camp locality where soldiers wero always being encountered, and as a result of his conversation with soldiers he was convinced that ss. was too little, and ho supported the amendment. Mr. Masters •(Stratford) 6aid it would .be impossible to get the pay asked by Mr._ Holmes. It woiild, all things count! • ed in, run the country into over J3G for a man. They wero out for an'irrediic- • ible minimum and should boar that in ; mind. Mr. Buxton (South Canterbury) said , they had been out to find the irreducible minimum that they could go to Parliament with—something they could demand and Parliament could grant. The finding of the sub-committee was as much as the Government would be prepared to 'give. They should avoid asking for any- " thing unreasonable. , Mr. Monteath said Wellington had decided to concentrate on getting belter conditions for wives and - dependants. ■ Mr. T. B. Slipper (Wanganui) thought ■Mr. Buxton's advice should be heeded. Mr. Spencer Chapman (Hastings) said the conference should go for what vas a. fair thing, and rot for what' they thought the Government might consent to give. Courage, among the lengners was needed—men who would fight here as well as' abroad. Mr.'W. T. Lindsav (North Canterbury) Bgreed with Mr. Chapman. There was ,£20,000.(100 war profit, and the country could afford what the amendment asked., Mr. C. H. Burnett was satisfied that the committee recommended a fair thing. The amendment was lost by 44 votes to 11. Mr. Spencer Chapman (Hastings) then moved that the pay should be 7s. Mr. Yates (Canterbury) seconded. He said there was a big consensus of opinion in Canterbury in favour of 75., and • three members of Parliament had dc- ' clared in favour of it.

There was a long discussion covering much of the ground traversed by speakers to the previous amendment. Some delegates favoured concentrating on better ponsiong and allowances. Others said they should not ask for more pay for -themselves -than the First Division hod received. -'To this it was replied that tho ss. was not now worth what it was when it was fixed on nearly three years ago.' , ■Jfr. Holmes (Featherston) maintained that as the ss. ivas worth now only 3s. ,'4d. by comparison, an-increase was needed. and he.favoured the amendment. • Sir. T. C. List said that he had assisted in- the organisation of the Taranaki district for the purposes of the league. They got tho province to a man. because of the reasonableness of their demands. They; should ask the Government for a reasonable thing, and they would get it. Also they could not afford to antagonise the public. 1 • Mr. Toogood (Featherston) supported ..the amendment. He said their irreducible minimum should be the maximum. . Mr. Bennett (Palmerston North) said that whatever tho conference brought down would be the least it could get. The amendment for 7s. a day was n wise one.

■ Mr. Cameron (Palmerston North) supported Mr. Bennett. Mr. C. 11. Chapman (Wellington) supported the original motion. Tile sol'dier was being looked after comparatively well, but his dependants were not. Delegates: Hear, hear. That is (he point. Mr. Monteath (Wellington) also fo.vour-ed-the motion for a ss. rate. . The amendment for 7s. a day was defeated by 44 to 13. Mr. Toogood (i'eatherston) moved, as a further amendment, that the pay should be 6s. If the ss. advocate allowed this through his supporters would not oppose the remainder of the proposals by the committee. They would bo 'sllowr-d to go through unaltered. Mr. Martin (Canterbury) seconded. Mr. J. M'l.eod (New Plymouth): Is it the idea that tho incrcaso should be retrospective ? . Mr. Toogood: No. ' Mr. M'Leod: Then it would bo unfair. Mr. Toogood: What about the cost of living? ..Finally a tliis amendment found the conference almost equally divided: the amendment was lost by 26 votes to 28. The proposal that the pay should bo ss. was then carried. The second clause of the remit wiis then considered, and it was decided that the separation allowance should be 65., not 55., as the committee reported. The other clauses regarding soldiers' pay were adopted as recommended. When the pension recommendations were considered they were adopted, except that the amount £2 16s. was increased to lis. and the amount £1 5s 6d. to £2 12s. fid., both to be in conformity with the increased separation allowance favoured. Regarding pensions for totally disabled soldiers, it was recommended by tho committee that the conference should adopt the British scheme with a 50 per cent, increase of amounts. Under this scheme a man with three children who earned 10s, before the

war would get the same amount; a man who earned ,£G would dratv J!5 12s. 6d.; a man who earned =£2 16s. would get .£3 3s. 9il. ill 1 . J. Clarke pointed ous that under tho scheme it was possible for a widow to get a tagger pension thi|n a. voman who had a diaable<l husband to keep. The conference then deferred the adoption of the report for a committee to report on that aspect. ,