SOLDIERS' FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 143, 6 March 1918, Page 6

SOLDIERS' FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE ATTITUDE

REPLY TO MINISTER OF DEFENCE

The executive of the Second Division League, having fully considered tho letter forwarded to the league by the Minister of Defence, followiug the redout deputation, has now replied as follow?: —

The Hon. Sir James Allen, K.C.8., Minister of Defence, Wellington. March 5, 1918.

Sir,—l am instructed by my executive to acknowledge with thanks your j ktter of February 22, together with en-. I closures. Referring first to that porI tion of your letter which deals wHh j the number of sittings of tho board i (Soldiers 1 Financial Assistance), tho number of applications dealt with, and Iho total amounts granted, the executive of the league is more than ever convinced that the board, as at present constituted, can hardly do justice to the merits of each individual case. Your quotation from the board's own report states that it met during the rronth of January on twenty occasions, and dealt with eight hundred applications—an average of forty cases per sitting. Tho executive notes that, of the number of cases under consideration, in only 376 cases were grants made to the applicants, or less than half. If grants were subsequently made in tho twenty-seven deferred eases it would bring tho total of grants lip to only 50 per cent, of tho applications. This remarkable average lends weight to the league's request for a full investigation. Ths gross total to date, as shown, of 4256 cases, at an annual expenditure of £'141,355 3s. 10d., gives an average of £33 4s. 3d. per grant, while the figures shown for the monih of January give an average per grant of £24 6s. 4d. per annum. Put in another way, the average weekly grant, taking the gross total, is 12s. 9d., and for the month nf January the average grant is 9s. 4d. per week. When these figures are compared with the much-advertised total possible grant of £156 per annum, or £3 per week, it must be admitted that the league's contention that the rsal liberality and practical usefulness of the regulations have been very greatly exaggerated, out by facts. This is the more noticeable when we remember that the existence of the regulations was used as an argument against increasing the separation allowances to an adequate amount.; Under the circumstances disclosed by the figures contaiued in your letter the extension of the maximum grant from £2 per .wco; to £3 per week could, only be availed of in the most exceptional and isolated cases, and can be of no benefit whatever to the great bodv of reservists. With referenoe to your remarks regarding most of the dissatisfaction that exists being largely duo to a misunderstanding of the intention of the regulations, I am directed to state that she league has never benn under any misapprehension regarding the limitations .created by private income. It '!-as never been contended by the league that Government should undertake a man's obligations when his private means would continue to bring him in a substantial and sufficient income over and above his military pay. Tho league holds, and shall continue to j hold, that substantial practical justice i must be done to our soldiers and their i dependants, and that under no circum-! fitiraces should their homes be broken ! up. !

The executive is pleased to noto that the Financial Assistance Board is taking into consideration tho increasing cost, of living, and will look forward to that influence being more apparent in future grants.

Life Insurance Polioies. Tho league is also gratified with your very definite statement regarding tho "new life insurance policies," and vour undertaking. that premium and war loading on same will be paid where there is no existing policy and where the circumstances warrant a grant of financial assistance, will give great satisfaction to reservists throughout the Dominion. With reference to tho letter quoted by the league, wo regret it cannot be taken as an isolated instance, as in our Case 3, an even more definite reply was sent by the board to the applicant as follows:—"In connection with the life insurance: The board can only undertake consideration of existing obligations, and any further obligntion incurred should be a matter entirely for your own arrangements." AVe note your statement that any similar intimations must have been

in error, _ and wo are notifying the various branches accordingly. It might be as well to point out, how'over, that the applicant referred to in Case 3 did write to the board asking further consideration ro insurance, but only received the stereotyped reply that ■'it cannot authorise any financial assistance in your case."

Reviewing 1917 Crants. AVith regard to the reviewing of the 1917 grants, the executive feels that this matter should be approached wi'Xlf. tiie greatest sympathy. Tho old scalo of separation allowances was so shockingly inadequate as to discount it being made the basis of any .calculation. You have stated in your letter ' that you are quite willing to have nn exhaustive investigation made in this matter, and the executive of the league would most strongly urge that such investigation bo carried out. In this connection the executive notes that, .you siato "in a good many cases jjra'ni'Iliiil, would have removed undue hardship twelve months ago have now boon increased in spite of the fact that the income of the dependants alone might exceed the total civil earnings of the soldier before enlistment." We can only express our full approval of this j policy, and urge that it bo universally j applied. The increased cost of living a , id the absence of the help-mate are sufficient justification. Tho executive is glad to note that in a number of tho cases put forward the applicants are being invited to make fresh application, but it is only right to point out that'in somo at least of tho cases they had themselves asked iho board for reconsideration, without rcbult. Tho cases put forward, however, wore chiefly for the purpose of illustrating the league's request for the establishment of certain , principles which should be laid down as a definite direction to the board,, and to show tfie inconsistencies that exist. Case 2, for instance, shows that the board lias, in this case, at any rate, granted assistance for tho purpose of repaying instalments of principal on a loan, while so far as we are aware, they have consistently refused to grant the small instalments of principal to those reservists who are trying to secure their own homes under the benefits provided 'iy tho Stato Advances Department. It is tho contention of the league that everything possible should be clone to encourage homo-building and home preservation for,the welfare of the State and the industrial and social stability of the Dominion. AVo therefore sii!*-ff-st that) as a 'national benefit, tlie board's policy in this\ matter should be reviewed.

Some Typical Gases Reviewed,

With regard to the "typical cases taken at random from recent grants," we find that 'where analysis is possible they constitute remarkable endorsements of thq league's rontontione.

In one caso tco find tho net income of a "wife only," after all obligations are mot, works out at £2 2s. 7d. por week. 11l this case the board has granted assistanco totalling £103 9s. lid. per annum, including instalments on a piano of £27 per annum. In view of this reasonable treatment we find it hard to understand tho board's determinations in other cases where such necessary items as rent or interest hare; been declined when the wife's incoino docs not anywhere nearly approach the amount shown in the case above. In another caso you show a wife with pno child.aged one year to be in receipt of a net income of £2 Bs. Bd. per week. It is the league's contention that the least a. wife should have for herself clear of /e----cuiTUif; obligations under conditions now existing is £2 2s. per week, with children's allowances extra, and the cases quoted by you and shown above practically bear this out. Apparently all that is required is a direction from the Government to the board that this be made a minimum standard.

Soldiers' Wives and Work. With reference to another matter that arose during the hearing you kindly gave the deputation from the league recently: namely, the implication gathered by reservists from communications of the boaid that thoir iviveß could go to work, and which you promptly repudiated—we regret to have to inform you that we have since received a communication from a reservist (name enclosed) who states: "In an interview with the secretary of the board I was told by him that my _ wife could go to work, as she could easily earn £1 a week" (for furthei to this see postscript). The executive is glad to have your clear statement that it is not your desire, nor,the desire of the National Government, that the financial assistp.nce regulations should be administered in a niggardly spirit, and appreciates your guarantee that this principle will be fully carried out: but having reviewed the whole" position would respectfully request your further consideration of the resolution of the league already presented 'to yoh as follbws:--

"That this meeting of Second Division reservists-, having hilly considered the evidence of inconsistency in the grants made by the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board and the hoard's failore to adequately interpret the recutations, urges upon Government the necessity of holdine an immediate and exhaustive inquiry into the manner in which the grants by the board are determined, and further urges the reconstitution of the board imi the establishment of financial assistance boards in each of the chief provincial centres of the Dominion." 6

Home Service Men. With reference to the question of granting the increased, separation allowances to men on home service who are actually separated from their families, I am instructed to point out that the cases put forward by the league were not advanced as specific cases calling for redress (although that will naturally follow), but as illustrations in support of the league's contention embodied in the resolution which was placed before yon, and which reads as follows:—

"That this meeting of memhers of the Second Division Leagues expresses its regret and disappointment at the reply of the Minister of Defence regarding payment of the- increased scale of separation allowances 'to men on home service who are actually separated from their families, and in, view of the definite statement made by the" Minister in Parliament that there would be be no discrimination between men of the home service and foreign service branches, calls 'upon the Government to fulfil the promise' so made in the cases of ithose men who are actually separated from "their families, and who, in consequence, are not in receipt of rationing allowance." The league asks that you should reconsider the determination expressed in your letter of January 29 to the effect "that there is no intention of extending the increased separation allowances to 'men employed in home service," in view of the representations made to you on this matter. As considerable hardship and dissatisfaction exists in connection with this question, an early decision would be greatly appreciated.

With thanks for your contimued courtesy, I have to honour to bis, sir, your obedient servant, ; (Signed) 0. 11. CHAPMAN, Hon. Secretary.

P.S.—Since writing the a hove we are advised by the reservist who claims that he was told his wife could go to work that he complained ditrcct to you and has received a reply to the effect that it was not the secretary, but another official of the board, who interviewed him, and that the official denies the statement. The reservist, however, stands by liis statement that he v, - a« told his wife could go to work.