RETURNED SOLDIERS' REQUEST

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 59, 4 December 1918, Page 7

RETURNED SOLDIERS' REQUEST

PRESENT, SCALE OF ALLOWANCES CABINET UNABLE TO MAKE IT RETROSPECTIVE ( After "very full consideration"—in the words of the' Prime Minister-the re- ! quest of the New Zealand Returned Soli <liors* Association for retrospective allow. ■ iinces tor dependants of the early, volunteers has been turned down by Cabinet. ■In a letter of November 13 to the secrc- . fary of the Wellington Ketu.rned Sol-i . ■ diers' Association, Jlr. Ma.fsey states:— '"In further-reply to your loiter'of the , 3Ut; ultimo,' passed at an extraordinary ' i general meeting of your association with , respect to the separation allowances now . paid * to dependants of soldiers of the New . Zealand Expeditionary Force, as • promised your representations have been placed before. Cabinet, and 1 have now to. advise that' Cabinet, after very full consideration.- regrets that in view of the ' lulpe expenditure Which 'will'be ncee?- ,' sary in connection wilh the repatriation I echemo which is now under consideration. ' it is unable to accede to tho ireriiiest' of [ your association that these allowances '• should. <be made retrospective." ■|. ; CASE l<oll TUB CLAIMANTS. .",'■ The following is a'copy of a circular letter.sent to all 'members- (including ■Ministers of the Crown) at the'beginhing 'of the session:—' ', '.. . ! I. The. 'participation of New Zealand in the war and tho necessity that-. a. force should be dispatched without de- .• lay; fhade it "necessary for "the early 'volunteers to leave it entirely to those I t\-]io remained behind to decide : wluifj constitute, a'''square deal" ■ for. the soldier. .They took this course without apprehension, and were fortified • in .their trust by declaration's from Press ' find platform that their future , wouldbe assured, by a. grateful country. . •'■ 11. .in October, 1017, mainly through the. efforts of the . Second. 'Division ■■ League, Parliament "authorised, insubstantial increase in the meagire scale cf 'pensions and allowances then in force. ■A. noteworthy feature of ..the .amended?cale was, that although authorised in OetbbHP, 191", - the- increases became operativ'e only from January 1. 191S, making it clear that they .were inrro- ' <liiced to apply to the members of tho .'Secoii'd- 'Division who wore expected to ■■'■ (inter , camp about that (late. 'Hie' Returned Soldiers' Association,'"which.has 'taken the. protestations' of -public' 'men" ■ at .'their, face .value, found.it impossible , to raise 'an; emphatic protest" before the 'House, adjourned itpniediately; on-pass-- • ing the amendment. Another session i.of .Parliament-■■β-hfe':-held, i." April, :1918, but the Government., announced that' only, yilally important business could be: ' transacted, and:tho association forebore i to press its claims at that time; Jt. . therefore has.'been. obliged.to wait ion ■the :.pfesent -session ;to insist on the; re- ■:; t.rosncctive application' of. .the amended scale.. .' .:.'.'■ ■."• ' ' • ■ • III.: The. concessions' of the. Government (« public.pressure, have furnished convincing, evidence for the. accusation that -to , secure the necessary complement 'of roiftforeenients'it has .continuously lni- , proved , the inducements offered, .."while it : has declined to make them available to all concerned. It is utterly inequitable 'that the men who offered their services without first- demanding tie. settlement; ■'.•of conditions of service should be worse| tu'eated. than those who insisted on definite conditions/' before' 'entering/camp, j IV. The retrospective. , application of '.the'present scale has , fen -opposed by a number of arguments, as follow:— \ (a) That llie-'finances of-New. Zea- ■ land would not bear, the'cost of the ...increase. ."■:.; '.',..' , •■. . .the association estimates this cost at i£400,000. The same argument of nnancial burden was urged against both the "original scale, of 'August. 1915 and the '.freely-amended scale , of October,; 191.i.. .Tho amount in questoin .coukl easily be niet from surplus taxation, i ;■•. ; (b) That the administration would : be too difficult for the Department ''.' to cops with. . ,-■,', -~' Tho number of'claims to be-dealt .with . Mvould be not moro.than 8000. -The exact ■'amount due" may .lie calculated im.n few moments from the final statement of 'ac--•count issued tn .every soldier. It. would • not be necessary that all should be dealtwith at once, and the dislocation due to the inevitably large reduction of Defence ■ Department staff on the close of Hie war could be reduced materially by this ° r (cVThat the allowances are not really needed. ■■■■'.'■■'■ •', ,'■ ■ In reply we would emphasise that , .— (I) Allowa'nces'tn family dependants are by rieht, not need. ■ •■■',:, v .-: ' '(2) The fact that the dependants of the. cn'vly volunteers,.who in.many cases fiac-i rificed all in the service of their country, bore their hardships in pilonce. must v not. .he interpreted as showing that no need existed. ■ . ' ' '. ■ , ' ■ ' i (d) That Ihe early volunteers were . 1 not comnelled to ?o. and. agreed to the conditions then offering. '■■_,■ This argument, ignores the following COTwiiWatinns:—". '• . ■ ; • (1) The influence of public opinion; en-., ■.:TOUi'a?ed, stimulated, land approved' by the (ipvernnient, is more compulsory'to la high-spirited'man than a Conscription I Act. ■• " ;■'.'" -■ •■""■•■.•:■ j (2) The acceptance of the fcrvice :0f

married men ipso facto implies responsibility for dependants. (3) The conditions were not ''agreed to," because they were not specified. 'J-'lie trust of tlie .soldier, invited n.nd freely given, at least presupposed equality of treatmont to all. ' © (e) Thitt the increased cost ftf living is the reason for Mho amcmle'd scale, which, accordingly, should not apply to t;ho period in question. While the increased cose of living undoubtedly contributed 'to the ■ i-ocessity Epr- increased allowances, noverlhelcfs the amended scale was not based merely upon the increased cost of living and by the scale of its increases recognised the; inadequacy of the prvious scheme apart from the' cost of living. Tn r.ny case (he 'association is concerned wilh the vindication of a principle, and would agree to the reduction of '.ho amount payable to correspond v.-illi such increase. i.Tjip elfeet in this case f.f tho increased , cost of living iniK be iilmost i unique ik- an example in which the course of (-vents lws tint operated to tho relative disadvantage of the early volunteers; . ' V. The association has not uniformly insisted upon the retrospective application of ,lho now and more favourable condition?;' It lias \taivcd its claim fnr example- to a retrospective ,mufti allowance, and also to the retrospective applioriiior. of the amended pension scale.