REPATRIATION

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 210, 24 May 1918, Page 6

REPATRIATION

SECOND DIVISION PROPOSAL PAY AND ALLOWANCES AFTER DISCHARGE IS IT A COMPROMISE? The problem of reuatriatiou was considered by tho conference of tho Federated Second Division Leagues yesterday. During the previous day the conference had reaffirmed its demand for the increase of the wife's separation allowance to (is. a day, in order that 3s. a day of tho soldiers' pay might accumulate" as deferred pay until his discharge. This arrangement had been dismissed as a provision for repatriation. When the conference met yesterday a committeo presented a scheme of repatriation which appeared to be legarded by some delegates as an. alternative in tho event of the Government refusing to increase tho separation allowance.

'J.'ho report of iho committeo was as follows :— "1. That tho Government adopt tho principle of extending State responsibility to all soldiers and their dependants from discharge or demobilisation tin. til full rehabilitation in civil life (such State responsbility primarily to tako tho form of a continuance of pay, allowances, and financial assistance as paid to tho soldier and his dependants duripg active service). >' | "2. That the minimum period of such Stato responsibility bo not loss than three mouths, to be extended where necessary on the recommendation of boards as set out hereunder. "3. That the Government be recommended to create at onco a special Department of Repatriation. "•1. That such Department proceed without delay, to collect information from other countries. "5. That special local boards, consisting of representatives of returned soldiers, Second Division Leagues, fanning interests, employers, and Labour organisations, be set up under the Department of Repatriation. "6. That the duty of such local boards shall be: (a) To inquire into tho circumstances of all returning or discharged men. (b) To recommend extension oil the period of State responsibility where advisable, (c) To secure the rehabilitation of returned ot discharged men as nearly as possible in their pre-war civil positions. "7. That it be a recommendation to tho Repatriation Department that a schemo bo established to :nablo returned or discharged men who have had to close down and sell out their businesses when called up for active service to make a fresh start by granting them financial assistance iu the form of loans at a low rato of interest." Mr. J. Clark (Raliotu) , moved the adoption of tho report. He -said that the proposal was simply that tho Government should continue pay and allowances until the returned soldier was earning his living again in civil life. The committee had recognised that there might be some malingerers, who would not re. turn to work at all if allowed to avoid it, and that there must be a. limit to the period in which pay would bo continued. The local boards would be 'able to consider applications for extension of the period, and would deal with each oaso on its merits. The schemo proposed by the committee would have an advantage over the deferred-pay proposal. A man might spend a lump sum and still have failed to restore himself to his old position in civil life. The deferredpay schomo would give no extension in such cases, and would givo no consideration to special circumstances. The committee's scheme would be better for some men and a little worse for other men. Tho average period of service 'abroad was about one year. A man without children, returning after ono year's service, would receive ,£37 under the committee's scheme, a man with ono child would receive .£43, and a man with two children would receive =£50. Tho money would be paid over a period of three months.

The Rev. J, E. Tocker (Gcraldino) asked the conferenco to give very serious attention to tho scheme. Hepatnation was ono of tho greatest problems tho Second Division had to face. Tits Government had had the matter in hand, but had not done muoh. He understood that tho Minister had asked tho league to give them a load on the repatriation question. The Government had recognised the principle of StatOjresponsibility for the soldier from tho time ho left his home and employment, and it should bo asked now to acknowledge State responsibility until the man hud re-estab-lished himself in civilian life. He hoped the report would have tho support of every member of the conference. Mr. B. D. Cook (Blenheim), replying to a suggestion that tho vote should bo taken at once in order that the report might bo presented to Ministers that morning, urged that there should be no undue haste. The scheme was too big to bo adopted, off-hand.

Mr. J. M'Leod (New. Plymouth) supported the scheme. He said that it represented tho first comprehensive plan for re-establishing soldiers in civil life, and he believed that it was on the right line. They all knew that the returned 6oldier was often not normal, and that ho was not fit to return at once to civil life. The scheme would bridge tho gap between return to New Zealand and complete absorption in civil life. Mr. C. Dunahay (Featherston) said that England, Canada, and Australia had Hepatization Departments, and New Zealand should not delay any longer. He would like to see the scheme adopted at once, and presented to the Minister that morning as tho league's demand. The Government had done nothing- for tho returned eoldievs.

The chairman (Mr. R. A. Armstrong): The Government has done something, but not. all that needs to bo done. Mr. T. Buxton (Temuka) moved that the report should be held over until tho afternoon, and this was carried. A copy Of tho report was subsequently handed to Sir James Allen by the delegates. AVlieu the discussion on the report was resumed in the afternoon, delegates emphasised tho importance of repatriation, and expressed general approval of the scheme. Mr. Dickenson (Havelock) asked if there was anything behind the report. He had come pledged to support the demand for an extra 3s. a day separation allowance. He had a feeling that the repatriation scheme was intended as a substitute for the 3s. Ho felt sure that it was so regarded by tho Ministers. He himself stood for "no compromise." Ho wanted the extra 3s. and also the committee's scheme. (Applause) Mr. E. G. Barry (Ohakuhe) said he was much in sympathy witn the last speaker. The repatriation scheme was the duty of the Government. It would have had to be done anyway. If the league accepted a repatriation schome instead of the extra allowance it would have achieved nothing.

The chairman said the committee had pimply brought forward a repatriation scheme, pure and simple. Whether tho extra 3s. would he granted or not was a matter for tho Government to deride. The two subjects wore separate. When the conference got its reply from the Ministers it would know exactly how it stood. Mr. Dickenson: Will the members of tho committee lay bare their minds? Are tliov disposed to accept this as a substitute for the 35.? Mr. T. C. List (lnglewood): I am. absolutely. Delegates: No! No! The chairman said the committee had reached no such determination as Mr. List's reply suggested. Mr. List had spokon entirely for himself. Mr. List: Absolutely. The chairman added that Mr. List need not havo spoken, because the mover and seconder of tho reoort were present. Tho committee had brought forward n. repatriation scheme, and nothing else. It would be for the whole conferonco to decide what should bo done regarding allowance, Mr. List said ho had simply stated his own opinion in roply to a question. The chairman said the committee could make no compromise. The conferenen had decided in favour of the increased separation allowance, and had placed its viown on that point before the Ministers. When the Government's reply was re ceived, the conference could consider the next step. Tho present position was that the conferonco had asked for the extra allowance and also for tho repatriation sohome. Tho repatriation report was adopted.