SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 228, 14 June 1918, Page 6

SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE QUESTION

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE

MINISTER

The following letters have passed between Ihe Minister of Defence i,Sir James Allen) smcl the secretary of tlic Second Division League on the matter of fho league's representation ou the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board and tho question of financial assistance to soluuii's' dependants:— Minister oi Defence's Department, Wellington, June 11, 1018.

Dear Sir,—l hiivci received your letter of Juno 7, advising me ol Ihe decision of (lie National Executive of the Second Divisio.i League to withdraw its representative from the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board for the reasons Bet forth in the attached resolutions. •

I have Already advised you in my reply of yesterday's dato that tho resignation ot Mr. Mitchell as your repre- : seiH'titive has been accepted, but that 1 have been pleased to recommend His • Excellency the Governor-General to re- .1 appoint him in his private capacity as a citizen and a. Second Division reser-' vist. I just wish to make one comment j' on the case you have quoted as the reason | for the action of your executive in , ■ withdrawing its representative. I havo I already clearly eta-ted that the Sol- | diers' Financial Assistance Regulations i were devised to prevent undue hardship j by reason of service. Yon have referred j to the case of a soldier whose civil in- i come was £Vi\i per annual, out of which, ! iu addition to maintaining his dependants, he had to feed, house, and clothe himself, and apparently quoted as a case of undue hardship by reason of military ! service. I have simply to point out that tho military income of this soidier and ' his dependants is now .6173 7s. Cd. per annum, plus a financial grant towards j insurance premiums of .£5 45., making a ! total monetary grant of ,£l7B lls. lid. per annum, and in addition the soldier is S fe - l, housed, clothed, and medically and I dentally attended by the State. 1 have ! previously assessed these' services m j equivalent to a money grant of at least! ■£52 per annum to the soldier, whichj estimate, 1 think you will admit, is ab- ' solutely low, particularly in view of tho claim, of your executive that a wife only requires a minimum of- ,£lOl per annum for food, clothing, etc. Alto- j gether, therefore, tho soldier to whom i you refer is receiving from the State on the most conservative basis at least iC2M Hβ. Gd. per annum, ■ I leave the public to judge as to the sincerity of the. reasons put forth by the executive in withdrawing its representative from the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board—Yours faithfully (signed) J. Allen, Minister of Defence. 0. 11. Chapman, Esq., Hon. Sec. National Federation of N.Z. Second Division Leagues, P.O. Box 708, Wellington. Tho secretary of the league has forwarded the following reply to the Minister :— The lion. Sir James Allen, K.C.8., Minister of Defence, Wellington. Sir,—At a meeting of the National Executive held this evening your replies of June 10 and 11 to our communications of May 30 and Juno 7 were duly considered, and it was decided to write as follows :-r ■ 111 this communication the executive confines itself to tho question of financial assistance, and will communicate witli you again on the other points of the league's letter of May 30, some cf which have not beeu touched upon iu your replies. (3) The executive of the league does not' ignore any crucial fact, as suggested, by you, regarding the purpose of the Financial Assistance Regulations, but respectfinly points out that in your replies you havo entirely overlooked the contention of the league contained in paragraph 8 of the resolution conveyed to you in our letter of 7st instant, viz.: S. That as this appears to the league to clearly indicate that the policy as laid down by the National Government does not recognise the sacred calling of motherhood as an employment worthy of the greatest' encouragement, and that the chilclren's' separation allowances, recent•ly increased by the Government, are to be nullified and the benefits thereof, so loudly proclaimed, rendered abortive. . . . Might we in this respect again call your attention to clauses 2, 3, and i of tho league's resolution forwarded in our letter of June 7. The executive notes that you have now endorsed theoflieiai attempt made in the Press to justify the policy of Ihe nourd,..in the case of a, reservist whose wife is to. bo left with <t!M per annum {XI Mis. per week) to keep herself and a ,boy of six—and this in spite of the fact that in a previous letter you stated that a "wife only," where the husband was in receipt of a salary of about .IiIGU or uhdor a year, will bte allowed a net minimum income of i:9O for herself ulone, and further state , that the wife's earnings, if she desires to take employment, will not be taken into consideration by the board in making a grant. Wβ might again point out that tho soldier's wife with young children cannot augment her income by taking employment. The league has always held that it is open to be convinced, and the executive would now be willing to learn from you how a. boy of six can bo fed, clothed, and otherwise provided for. on JM per year (one shilling and .sixpence halfpenny per week). We regret to have lo remind you of your several public statements that the JiSO wns allowed for the bare food and clothing of the "wife only," and the statement made lo the same effect by Mr. Honaldi-on (chairman of the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board) in giving evidence before the Defence Exuenditui'6 Commission. We desire also to call your attention lo the following quotation from Tin: Dominion of .May 8 Inst, giving Mr. Honalds'on's evidence:—"lt was not considered that tho 10s. Cd. n j week allowed for a child was nuy more I than enough, and no part of it was extracted to meet obligations. The fcoard on occasions increased the allowance, for.'it was considered that 10s. 6d. a week would not keep a chile of from 1(1 to 14 years of age." We <um only point out'lhat in the case above quoted and in which you are endeavouring to

justify the board's action, the sum of J323 7s. 6d. line been extracted from the child's allowance. We would respectfully ask you how you square your reply to us with the statement of Mr. Honaldson as above quoted. In view of the foregoing and our own ■unfortunate, oxperience with roprosontntion on the board, the executive is confirmed in its opinion that the members of the board have very little tx> do willi the making of grants other than in accordance with a

policy laid down by the Government. If Mr. 'Ronnldson'.i statement of policy as

shown above was the policy of the board, the. soldier's wife with one child would b« provided with a net income of fit least. .£ll7 7s. 6d. clear of obligations instead of ,C!H, as in the enso quoted, and which vou arc endeavouring to justify.

the exeentivy tola thai the Government is working from a wrong basis, and contends that the only tiling that should bo considered is the provision for soldiers' wives and children or other dopi'iuliuHs of a reasonable standard of comfort. tt is futile to compare the household income of our pooi'er \vorkers, and advance that as a justification for parsimony in connection with the upkeep of a soldier's home. Under norma! conditions the husbands in thp lower-paid ranks of industrial life have many opportunities of adding to their ordinary pay by overtime and outside employment in llu , i , vcniii«, but above all there is (lie advantage of being,able to face domestic (rials together, and the ability to meet contingencies as they flrise. Under military service the soldier is powerless to.meet contingencies and changes that affect Ilia homo; therefore iliß State must lake the place of husband ami father, and this duty can only be fulfilled by a generous interpretation of the linniicial provision necessary for adequate maintenance. The executive, therefore, cannot ac&pl your arguments based on the question of civilian income; but as you nave on various occasions estimated the totnl amounts that soldiers receive from tho . State by inclusion of an estimate of the

soldier's keep, the league would point out to you that under the various arbitration, awards where; tradesmen are reluired to live away from homo while working the employer is required to provide free board and lodging or pay an additional amount, which averages at about £1 per week. Tho executive contends that the State in nailing a man from his home for military duly must accept ths common obligation that is placed upon a civilian employer under similar mreum.stam.'es; therefore the addition of "soldier's keep" that is constantly being mado in official estimates of State- provision for soldiers' homes h> based oil an absolute fallacy. Another point that appears to be overlooked by thu authorities is that the whole life of tho> soldier is controlled and that if any comparison is to he made with civilian employment it would mean that at the lowest hourly rate of pay fixed in New Zealand the soldier would be in receipt of an unheard-of wage, - This of coursn is absurd, but it is no less absurd to use the prc-onlist-ment income to attempt to justify inadequate provision .for tho soldiers' wives and children.

The executive would respectfully restate the contention of the league that oiilO per annum is not sufficient for the wife of :i soldier' asi a living allowance. As you are aware the league holds that the net minimum income for a soldier's wife should bo £2 2s. per week (JsilOO is. per annyA'i), clear of recurring obligations, with children's allowances extra. Tho executive regrets that Government has not so far seen its way to meet this reasonable request, and that we nre compelled to continue pressing for what appears to the league to bo a most moderate request in view of tho high cost of living now ruling. The executive feels that tho time has arrived when tho league, is justified in putting forward a table showing the actual items that are ptirclinsftible and the standard of living attainable for a. soldier's wife and boy of, say, eight years of age, on a clear J income of .C 2 2s. for the wife, with the ! child's allowance of 10s. Gd. extra. The league does not put this forward as a general standard of living, but as a jus■tifiention of its ■ contention that the amount advocated , will provide only the i barest reasonable state of comfort. It ! must also be remembered that the estimates are based, on to-day'e prices, I whereas the cost-of-living thermometer i shows, a constant and considerable 'rise.

In yonr letter of June 11 you conclude l>y saying: "I leavo the public to judge aa to the sincerity of the reasons put forth by the executive in withdrawing its representative from the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board." The executive vesents tlie suggestion- contained in this paragraph, and desires to say in reply that as you have been the. first to raise the question of sincerity the league in its turn will leave the public to judge as to your sincerity in hastening to secure the Teappointment. ' Tho following table of estimates was > enclosed with the letter :— . Table showing expenditure of soldier's wife and boy of, !say, eight years of age, based on .£2 2s. per week clear income for wife and 10s. 6d. for child:— Food. Per week. • £ 6. d. Moat, 7lb. at 9d 0 5 3 Bread, 5 loaves at Sid ..... 0 2 .Si Milk, 5 quarts at 51 : d. 0 2 3JButter, Ulb. at Is. 8d 0 2,6 Sugar, 31b'. at 3d 0 0 9 Jam, lib. at l\i 0 0 71 Vegetables .'. 02 0 Fruit 0 1 B Tea '0 10', Sundries (flour, oatmeal, salt, etc.) 0 3 V .£1 1 9J Household. Fuel and lighting 0 5 0 Newspapers 0 10 Sundries (washing materials, matches, polish, etc., etc.) .... 0 2 0 Replacements (crockery, towels, lcitchenware, liucn, etc.) 0 2 6 Parcels to the front 0 2 6 Stationery, postages, eto. 0 0 6 Tram fares 0 10. .£0 14 6 A total of «Cl. 16s. 3Jd. per week. ' Clothing. Perannum, Wife. 8 - d - Dresses (1 summer, 1 winter) ... 10 0 0 Blouses • 3 0 0 Skirt > I J « Aprons , J Stockings HO 0 UnderclothingCorsets Ol.i 0 3 singlets, at 6s. 6d 0 19 .6 Combinations 1 10 0 Underskirts '• 110 Boots and repairs ....- .••■■ 300 Hats (2) • 2 5 0 Glovos , ■••• 0 17/0 Overcoat (average) 1 10 0 .Sundries (nightgowns, handkerchiefs, etc.) - 2 0 0 \ £29 12 6 Boy. 2 suits, at 30s 3 0 0 •J shirts, at lis 1 0 0 3 singlets, at 6s 0 18 0 i pairs socks, at ss. (or stockings) 3 0 0 lliits oi caps (aycrago) 0 5,0 Boots and repairs 1 10 0 Overcoat (average) 15 0 Sundries (handkerchiefs, nightwear, lies, braces, •etc.) 10 0 JEB 18 0 A total of £39 10s. 6d. per annum. Summitry. Per week. / • . £e. d. Fottl/ i t 1 1 t>l Household 0 14 6 Medicinal k 0 10 Clothing 0 15 2\ Total .-' =C 2 12 6