FINANCIAL AID

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 135, 25 February 1918, Page 6

FINANCIAL AID

SIR JAMES ALLEN'S REPLY

WHAT THE BOARD HAS DONE

SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE'S CiSES

Following is the text of a letter sent by Sir James Allen (Minister of Defence) to Mr. R. A. Armstrong (president of t|4 Second Division League) in reply to 'representations mado to the Minister regarding the administration of tho Soldiers' Special Financial Assistance Regulations by a- deputation from the league on Thursday:— Grants Total £160,000 Per Year. February 22, 1918. Dear Sir,—The several cases which the deputation from tho executive, of the Second Division League placed before mo yesterday in connection with the administration of the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board have been investigated, and 1 now desire not only to place tho board's explanation before the public, but to reply more fully than was possiblo when you waited on mo to the general representations then made. It has been said that the financial assistance regulations have hecn drawn up with the idea of bluff and to enable tho Government to shirk its responsibilities to tho dependants of our soldiets, but the public ml! he able to judge the worth of that statement when tlicy read the last report of the Financial Assistance Board upon the extent of assistance already given. Tho report, which is dated February 4, 1018, states:— The board met on twenty occasions during tho mouth of January, and dealt with 800 applications, including 86 reconsidered eases. Of this number 397 were withdrawn or declined, 27 were deferred for further information from the applicants, and 376 grants were made. Seven hundred applications were received during the month, and all were submitted to the board with the exception of those not properly filled in by the applicants. The board has held, 198 meetings to date, and has considered 7486 applications. 1 his number includes 963 reconsidered cases, the actual liumbor of new _ cases submitted being 6523. Grants have been approved of in 302 cases during the month, representing an annual expenditure of £7074 3s. 2d., including 24 additional grants amounting to £314 3s. 9d. annually, or a gross total to date of 42156 cases, at an annual expenditure of £141,355 3s. lOd. Of the cases now under action, 365 grants have been approved and aro awaiting final decision. These, when authorised, as they will be within , the course of the next few days, will swell the £141,355 total assistanco already given to over £160,000. Fresh applications are being dealt with every day. Considering that no draft of the Second Division will go into camp until tho end of May next the total assistance already given may safely be said to be no small sum, and certainly does not bear tho semblanco of "bluff. Fair-minded critics will appreciate this the more so when tliey realise that this represents special assistance granted over and above pay and separation allowances and the saving to each household affected of the cost of the man s keep. It will be noted that many cases have been reconsidered, but your executive should clearly understand that in the majority of these cases tho reconsideration is tho result of change of circumstances requiring an entirely fresh grant. In most of the other cases the amended grant has been made becauso furtlier inquiry has shown that the whole of the circumstances of the applicant were not clearly sot forth in the original application.

Regulations Misunderstood. Most of the dissatisfaction that exists, I find upon inquiry of the Financial Assistance Board, is largely duo to a misunderstanding of the intention of the regulations. Many people appear to be under tho impression that tliey can receive payment in full for any Item provided under the regulations irrespective of their financial circumstances. As a matter of fact, the intention in all cases to prevent undue hardship to '<the soldier and his dependants by reason of bis service m the Now Zealand Expeditionary Force, and the board is not called on to make a grant where the income of the soldier and his dependants while hs is on service is sufficient to meet all obligations and to provide a reasonable amount for tho maintenance of tho dependants. There seems to be quite a mistaken idea abroad that so long as the amounts applied for do not exceed £156 per annum, the maximum amount payable under tho regulations, . the board will undertake the whole liability. If such a policv were adopted it is obvious that glaring anomalies would be created, as tho board would be •ranting assistance to remove undue hardship which did not exist, owing to the soldier or his dependants being in possession of private means which are bringing in a substantial income. The State indeed cannot afford to help in such oases, and the Government does not propose to do so.

Cost of Living Considered,

The board has now been in existence, for nearly twelve months, and it assures mo that ior some time past it has taken into consideration the increased cost of living, ai.d in a good many cases grants that wouldnave removed undue hardship twelve monjths ago have now been increased, in sjiite of the fact that the income of the dependants alone might exceed the total civil earnings of the soldier before enlistment.

Needless to say, the board takes no steps whatever to publish particulars of grants as evidence of the treatment it extends to applicants, but a few cases taken at random will indicate the liberal manner in which the board has endeavoured to interpret the regulations. ii: some of these cases it will be seen that the board lias ignored the,-civil income of the soldier before enlistment, and has granted the wife an adequate amount to enable her to maintain herself and children in comfort during the soldier's absence, in spite of the fact that the military income of the wife alone plus the board's errant now exceeds the total ci\il earnings of her husband, out of which the latter had to be fed and clothed; now the State provides his food and clothing. Attitude on New Insurance Policies. The question of the board's attitude in the matter of new insurance policies has been given considerable prominence, and notwithstanding various announcements that have b een "V"! 0 throughout New Zealand and the dehnite statement made in mv recent lettcr to your league, there, still seems to ho misapprehension ias to whether a reservist is entitled to assistance to meet insurance premiums and war loading on a new policy. 1 wish again definitely to state that the board's policy in respect to new life insurance policies is as lollows:— In the case of new life or longterm (30 vears or over) endowment policies up to £'iOO only, the board is prepared to consider payment of the ordinary premiums and the war loading, where there is no existing policy, and where the circumstances warrant a grant of financial assistance.

The board, however, cannot take out the policy, but it cau be taken for granted that the board will pay the premium' and any war loading if the soldier has no other insurance, and is unable to meet the premiums out of his military pay and allowances and other incomes, if _ any. I liavo 110 hesitation in giving this undertaking, because I am advised that the Soldieis' Financial Assistance Hoard has already agreed to pay the premiums and war loading 011 a very considerable number of new policies. It is estimated tnat grmts have been made to meet premiums 011 new policies to the number of over '200. It is not possible to give the exact number without searching each file in the office. Regarding the letter quoted by you yesterday, and to which you apparently attached great importance as indicating that the board's practice was at variance with the policy just outlined, I find 011 investigation that it was sent out in error and should bo in 110 way regarded as an expression of the board's policy. So far as the board is aware, it is an isolated instance and arose from the case in question being handled by a new clerk in the office. The letter was unfortunately sent t-o the addressee without the mistake being noticed. If the latter had written to tile hoard asking for an explanation the matter would have at once been put right. I desire further to say that if it should happen that a similar intimation has heen sent out to any other applicant this also must have been in error and he should at once communicate with the board. Necessity for Reviewing ISIT Grants, Your deputation passed a- good deal of criticism on the action of the financial Assistance Board in reviewing 1917 grants owing to the introduction of the increased separation allowances. I am informed by the board that this is being dono only in eases where it is found that an anomaly has arisen taking the whole circumstances, including the soldier's pre-servicc income, into consideration. The board was obliged to review these cases because with these grants existing it could not reconcile decisions in recent cases of men in exactly the same financial position. Take, for instance, the eases of Private Smith, who has been already serving, and of .Private Jones, who lias iust entered camp. Both, before joining the Expeditionary Force, were in a corresponding financial position. Private Smith was granted financial assistance under the old allowances. By the introduction of the new separation allowances he and his dependants are thereby placed in a better position than they wore in before Private Smith joined the Expeditionary Force. In the case of Private Jones, the same grant cannot be given because the board must consider his military income at the 1918 rate and grant such assistance as is felt necessary in addition ; whereas, in Smith's case, the military income was considered at tho lower (1917) rate and augmented by a larger grant. It will bo seen then that the former would have cause for complaint because of the better treatment extended by the board to Private Smith. The board, as a result, is obliged to review the case of Private Smith, the'principle upon which it acts being that.it cannot fairly differentiate between the two. These are the sort of cases that are being revised, and I am informed that in 110 case has the reduction mado been equal to the increased separation allowances. In fact, a substantial portion of the original grant in many cases has heen allowed to stand in view of the increased cost of living. I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining this because misconception has arisen. Definite Examples. With a view to quoting more definite examples of what has been done, I have taken a number of cases at random that liavo been reviewed.

Case 1 (wife only)— Soldier's preservico income of £163, paying £26 rent. Wife's military income, 1!)17 rates (3s. 6d. allotment, Is. separation allowance), £82 2s. 6d. per annum; board granted full payment of rent, £26. Wife's 1918 military income (3s. 6d. allotment, 3s. separation allowance), £118 12s. fid.; board rescinded rent grant of £26, leaving the wife (after payment by herself of rent) £92 12s. fid. per annum for herself alone to live upon. In addition, soldier himself is receiving Is. 6d. per day pocket money. This gives combined monetary receipts of £146, plus soldier's free keep, or only £17 less than soldier's pre-service income. Case 2 (wife only).—Soldier's pre-ser-vico income, £15ti. Wife's total military income, 1917 rates, £82 2s. 6d.; wife's private income from property, etc., more than sufficient to meet recurring financial obligations; board granted life insurance, £15 14s. <Jd. Wife's 1918 military income, £118 12s. 6d.; board rescinded grant, leaving wife net military- income of £102 17s. 3d., plus private income, making a net total of £132 12s. 6d. Wife lives rent free on farm.

Case 3 (wife and three children).— Soldier V. pre-service income, £IC6. Wife's 1917 military income, £123 3s. 9d.; hoard granted for interest, rates, and lire insurance £19 7s. Id. Wife's 1918 military income £173 7s. 6d. j board rescinded 1917 grant, leaving her, after payment of interest, rates, and insurance, £154 Os. 5d.. with nn man to keep. In addition, soldier drawing Is. Gd. a day, making combined income £200 los.j plus free keep, and pension benefits.

Now these are eases merely taken at random, and may not perhaps be a fair guide, but if regarded as necessary I am finite willing to make a more exhaustive investigation. I attach hereto schedules (a) presenting the board's side in reply to the specific cases quoted by the deputation; and (b) cases taken at random, to show recent grants made by the board. It will be noticed that the net income varies in certain cases. Although this may appear to be an anomaly, it is quite unavoidable by reason of the fact that the board cannot pay a portion only of such obligations as interest, rates, life insurance prcmiiuns. etc. Consequently, by authnrising the payment of'the full amount of certain obligations, ono applicant may be left with a net income of a few pounds more than another applicant. I am not yet in a position to reply to the representations of the deputation regarding home-service allowances in respect of the specific cases quoted. These are being investigated, and I will advise you of the result in due course. ''Prepared to Give Every Possible Guarantee." In conclusion, let me repeat that I welcome the fullest discussion of the administration of the Financial Assistance, Board. I do so for two reasons— firstly, because 1 urn satisfied that the board has honestly tried to give effect to the spirit of the regulations which have been framed solely to meet the needs of soldiers and their ; and, secondly because if, iiv the investigation, it is found that any case has not been adequately met, we shall be able t» increase the grant forthwith. It is not my desire, nor is it the desire of .the National Government, that the financial assistance regulations should bo administered in a niggardly spirit, and I am sure that my colleagues with me are prepared to give every possible guarantee that this principle will be fully carried out. Our desire, equally with that of your league, is to see that full justice is done to soldiers and their dependants. We, nevertheless, have a difficult task to perform, and it would be strange indeed if we performed it, without arousing some cause for complaint. But let it be clearly understood that auyone dissatisfied with the financial

assistance given may at any time apply for a rehearing, and 1 guarantee that their cases will receive the consideration they deserve.—Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) JAMES ALLEN, Minister of Defence. THE SCHEDULES SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION. Attached to the report are two schedules, A and B. The A «.'htdule gives the facts of the cases cited by the Second Division, and the U schedule a number of cases selected at random. SCHEDULE B. CASE I. Position is not correctly stated. No mention of lodge fees (£4 10s. 4d.) was made in the application form. Total obligations, as shown in application form, amounted to £23 ss. per annum, but it would appear that only the halfyearly instalment of interest and "principal'' (£ll os.) on the Starts advances mortgage was shown in the column ''amount per annum." This, of course, should liavo read £22 10s. Had the application form been correctly filled in, the obligations would have amounted to £39 os. 4d., instead of £23 65., and a grant would have bee" authorised. "When applicant was notified regarding tho insurance policy the case had not been submitted to the beard, and as the insurance premiums were not included in the application form, the board declined to authorise a grant of tho only obligations, amounting to £23 os. per aunum, iududiiijr "principal" repayments of mortgage, as the wife would have a not income for herself only of about £100.

The board, however, admits that a clerical mistake occurred in comicction with the statement contained in its letter of December 19, written by ono of tho correspondence clerks, and dispatched from the oflice in the naino of the secretary. The paragraph, ns communicated, related to new obligations in connection with the purchases of furniture, etc., and a further paragraph was inadvertently omitted, to the effect that full particulars of tho insurance policy when elfcctcd should bo supplied to the board. This was an unfortunate error, and was obvious-' ly incorrect, in view of the board's definite policy as regards life insurance. It will be seen, therefore, that t,hi>: is purely an isolated case in connection with'life insurance, and it, would be incorrect to suggest that the letter, as dispatched to tWs reservist, wos a general one.

The reservist has been asked to complete a fresh application form, setting forth clearly his full obligations, so this his case can be reconsidered.

Case 2. —With slight variation caso identical as represented In application net income £79 7s. lOd. per annum. No reference whatever is made to the applicant having a- delicate wife—nor is there any suggestion or inference in the case of si#h. Applicant, in acknowledging the board's letter, states: "I am quite prepared to admit that my wife could carry on without undue hardship were the payments of principal deferred." No request for reconsideration received, although board would have authorised a grant had wife's state of health benn disclosed. Reservist not yet in camp —civil earnings £180 per annum. Applicant requested to make fresh application, pointing out additional necessities of case.

Case 3.—Lifo insurance policy projected only, but included in obligations —not, however, shown in space for obligations on which assistance was required. Wife's net income, £82 19s. 2d. Inl this case also there is no referenco whatever, cither in application form or correspondence, to delicate wife—nor doctor's certificate—but had this aspect of the pse been presented the board would haye certainly authorised a grant. Civil income, £200. Applicant requested to make frosh application, pointing out additional necessities of his case and the spocial circumstances now disclosed.

Case 4.—The only obligation shown is that of premiums on life insurance policy for £250. Statement in application to the effect that no rent, board, interest, or other obligation being paid. Wife apparently remaining in employment. Applicant, farm hand; civil income, £130. Wife's position:—Allotment, £63 17s. 6d.; separation allowance, £54 155.; total, £118 12s. 6d. Circumstances as.represented: Wife's not income, £94 lis. 2d., free of all expenses except clothing, eto. Board did not feel justified in paying life- insurance, as it would appear wife could .meet same without any undue hardship whatever.

Case 5. —The facts are not as stated. Wife only. Income, £118 12s. 6d.; obligation, board and lodging, £52; total, £66 12s. 6d. F.A.8., paying life insurance, £7 lis. 3d. £66 12s. 6d, is net income after payment of board and lodging. Position incorrectly stated. Application nu.de for: Board and lodg-. ing, £52; life insurance, £7 Us. 3d.; fire insurance, Bs. Bd.; total, £59 19s. lid. Board granted life insurance, £7 lis. 3d., leaving wife £118 12s. 6d. to meet own hoard and lodging, and firo insurance, Bs. Bd. Note.—This is a case of board, and lodging, not rent, as shown by the Second Division League, and wife should be able to manage comfortably.

Case 6.—lncome: Allotment, £63 17s. 6d.; separation allowance, £45 los.; total, £118 12s, Bd. Obligations: Kent, £52; life insurance, £3 ss. (£55 os.); total, £63 7s. 6d. Board's grant: Rent on account £13, life insurance £3 os., making a total of £16 ss. After balance of rent wife will have £79 12s. 6d. Applicant accepted board's decision, and has not applied for reconsideration.

Case 7.—-Wife's income, £4 10s., and £118 12s. 6d., a total of £123 2s. 6d. Obligations: Interest £12 155., rates ;S3 3s. 4(1., life insurance £13 175., lire insurance £2 10s. 3d. (£32 os. 7d.), making £90 16s. lid. Add board's grant, life insurance, £13 17s.—a total of £104 13s. lid. Position as regards obligations correctly stated. After meeting all obligations wife will have v an income of £104 13s. lid. No special features were mentioned, and the Board held that wife should be able to manage on this income. Case 8.--Position as stated will be .MS 14s. 4d. for maintaining self and baby six months old. _ No special circumstances were mentioned, and it appeared to the hoard thdt applicant couid maintain herself and baby without undue hardship on income shown: —Income, £127 155.: obligations, £29 os. 8cl.: total, £98 14s. 4d.

Casn 9.—Waterside worker—Civil income, average £4; wife's income, £118 12s. 63. Obligations—Rent, £46 365., insurance £16 13s. 5d.--£G3 9s. 5i1.: balance, £55 3s. Id.: add board's grant, life insurance, £16 13s. 5d.; rent on account £13—£29 13s. 5d.: net, wife, £84 13s. 6d. Applicant expressed dissatisfaction, and this case is now under consideration. Again, it should be pointed nut that no reference whatever was made to delicate wife, and this information would have influenced the board's grant. No recommendation received from Military Service Hoard, F.A.15. having dealt, with this direct.

Case 10.—Labourer, civil ineonic probably £150. Income: Allotment £54 los., wife separation allmvaneo £54 155., 3 children separation allowance £54 15s; total £164 ns. Add board's grant, £36 12s. Grand total, £200 17s.

It will be noticed that the wife's tota' ineonic. including the lioard's < grant, amounts to £'200 175., as actainst the husband's civil earnings of £150, in addition the husband is receiving £30 10s. per annum and is being kept in food and clothes, or a. total combined

income of £237 76., and husbanfi maintained by State. The board can® not reasonably bo expected to increaso its grant in this case, as the woman is obviously very much bettor oft and, should be able to manage quite comfortably. Case" 11.—The circumstances shown here are:—lncome: Allotment and allowance, £127 15s. Obligations: Rent, £58 10s.; instalments, £18; life insurance, £6 55.-; total, £82 155.; balance, £45. Add board's grant: Instalments, £18; life insurance, £G_ 55.; rent (on account), £26; total, £50 55.; grand total, £95 ss. It should be noted that the Second Division Leaguo's statement shows an allotment of 3s. Gd. The applicant, himself gives it as -Is., and the board based its grant accordingly. It also appeared likely that this man would receive special service pay. The net income is therefore £95 55., and not £7(5 145., or 295. Od. per week, as stated by the Second Division League. 'Jim statement that the board granted part instalments oil loan is also incorrect. The board authorised full instalments, which were at first disclosed as £12, but subsequently verified at £18, and the figures were altered accordingly: It will be noticed in this ease that the wife's income, including board's grant, amounts to £178 per annum, and the husband's total civil income to £210 per annum, from which superannuation would have to bo deducted, and the board could not reasonably be expected to increase its grant. Case 12.—Civil occupation, watersids worker. The wife's military income is £182 10s., as against husband's civil income, as stated by himself, of £182. Tlio board felt justified in rescinding: its grant of £39 in view of the increased allowances amounting to £50 3s. 9d. The wife receives for herself, morn i than the husband earned, and should be able to manage in comfort. If the husband's pocket money and clothing and keep by State were added, it will be seen that this family is now very much better off.

Cass 12 (aj.—Wife, and daughter, a aged.. 16. Wife's income, £109 10s.; daughter, £5 ; total, £161 10s. Rent, £45 10s.; balance, £116. Add board's grant: ltent (on account), £26; total, £142 per annum for wife and ono child. Applicant was resident in Waliganui, renting a house at 17s. 6d. per week, or £45 10s. per annum. Came, to Wellington and obtained ri house at 205., or £52. Applicant's" statements to the board's staff rather conflicting. Evaded questions relating to assistance by the daughter to household expenses, but subsequently admitted that the daughter contributed in varying amounts up to 12s. 6d per week. Applicant has since approached the board for reconsideration on the ground of indifferent health.

Case 12 (bj.—The board granted: Rent (on account), £52; life insurance. £28 10s. 2d.; National Provident Fund, £1 195.; lodge fees, £1 Is.; fire insurance, 18s. Ba.; total, £84 Bs. lOd. Add portion lodge fees remitted, £2 95.; National Provident Fund (half), £1 19s. Grand total, £88 16s. lOd. While soldier is serving with the New Zealand Expeditionary Force his total income,' 1 including the board's grant and wife's separation allowance, will amount to £234 16s. 10d., as against civil earnings, £239. and soldier will lie kept by State. Wife's net income, after paying balance of rent and assuming that she will occupy the house herelf, rent £78 per annum, will he £92 12s. 6d. This man was given special advice and was interviewed by the secretary, merely to save unnecessary lengthy correspondence, in view of the fact that the reservist had misinterpreted the object of the regulations. Schedule B is a memorandum of typical case taken at random from recent grants.