RETROSPECTION

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 197, 15 May 1919, Page 5

RETROSPECTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS' CASE THE POSITION EXPLAINED The following statement of the New j , Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association's j case for tho payment of retrospective allowances in full was handed to a Dominion reporter yesterday by Mr. D. Seymour, the general secretary. The association particularly emphasises its demand that tho present scale of allowances to children which came into operation on January 1, 1918, shall be extended to apply over the whole war period. 'Tho present position in so far as the association is concerned is that the matter has reached a deadlock, as the Minister has declined to go any further than he has in satisfying the claims of the association :— 1. The .participation'of New Zealand in tho war and the necessity that a force should be dispatched without delay made it necessarv for the early volunteers to leave it entirely to those who remained behind to decide what should constitute a "square deal" for the soldier. They took this course without apprehension, and were fortified in their trust by declarations from Press and platform that their future would be assured by a grateful country. ' 2. In October, . 1917, mainly through tho efforts of the Second Division League, Parliament authorised a substantial increase in the meagre scale of pensions and allowances then in force. A noteworthy feature of the amended scale was that although authorised in October; 191", the increases became operative only from January 1, 1918, making it clear, that they were introduced to apply, to the members of the Second Division who were expected to enter camp about that date The Returned Soldiers' Association, which had taken the protestations of public men at their face value, found it impossible t.o raise an emphatic protest before the House adjourned immediately on passing the amendment. Another session of Parliament was held in April,. 1918, but the Government announced that only vitally important business could be transacted, and the association forbore to press its claims at that time. ' 3.—The concessions of the Government to public pressure havo furnished convincing evidence in support of the accusation that to secure the necessary complement of reinforcements it continuously improved the inducements offered, while it declined to make them available- to all concerned. It is utterly inequitable that tho men who offered their services without first demanding the. settlement of conditions of. service should be worse treated than those who insisted on definite' conditions before entering camp. i— The retrospective applications of the present 6calo has been opposed by a number ,of wholly indefensible contentions:— . '■• (a) That the finances of New Zealand would not bear the cost of the ' increase. Tho same argument of financial burden was urged against both the original scale 0.l August, 1915, and the freelv.- amended scale of October, 1917. The inaccuracy or this argument is shown by the fact that.put of a vote of something in excess of-two millions for gratuity, etc •only some .£410,000, subsequently increased to.about £500,000, could be spared "in lieu 'of retrospection. It has even been freely rumoured that the gratuity is to he further increased, presumably without imposing a, breaking strain on the slender financial resources of a country <U5,000,{i00 for, the. war 'jioriod. (b) That m the' administration would be too difficult for The Department | to cope with. The number of claims to be dealt with would be not more than 8000. The exact amount due may be calculated in a'few moments from the final statement of account issued to every soldior. It would not be necessary that all should be dealt with at once and the dislocation due to the inevitably largo reduction of Defence, Department staff on the. close of the war. could be reduced materially by this work. . J •> (c) That the allowances are not really needed. In reply we would emphasise that (1) Allowance! to family dependants are by need. (2) The fact that the ■dependants of the early volunteers, who in many cases sacrificed nil in the service.of their country, bore their hardships in silence, must not .be interpreted as showing that no need existed. • (d) That the early volunteers were not compelled to go and agreed to the conditions then offering. This argument ignores the following considerations: (1) The influence of public, opinion, encouraged, stimulated and approved by (he Government, is more compulsory to a higlKspirited man than a Conscription Act. (2) Tho acceptance of the service of married men ipso facto implies responsibility for dependants. (3) J.he conditions were not "agreed to" because they were not specified. The trust of the soldier, invited and freely "nven at least presuppsoed equality 6f "treat! ment to all. . , (e) That the increased cost of living is the reason for tho amended scale which should not apply to the period in question. While the increased- cost of living undoubtedly contributed to the necessity for increased allowances, nevertheless the amended scale was not based merely upon the increase cost of living nnd by the scale of its increases recognised tho inadequacy of the previous schemo apart from the cost of living. If the Minister, of Defence in urging this objection does so seriously the association will be the first body to recognise its validity and to_ insist that the principle shall be applied consistently. However, the effect in this case of the increased cost of living must lie almost unique as an example in which the course of events has not operated to the relative disadvantage of the .early volunteers. The, association. has not uniformly insisted upon the retrospective application of the new and more favourable conditions introduced as the war progressed. At the suggestion of the Minister of Defence it waived its logical claim to a retrospective mufti allowance, and also to tho retrospective application of the amended pension scale. It did so \vithout prejudice, to the justice of its demands and on considerations whether the amount in question justified the necessary expense and trouble. It is within the memory of the association that the ■Minister of Defence at an earlier stage nnd in reference to a.relatively inexpensive proposal, was able to recognise the justice of the retrospective principle much loore clearly than he lias been ablo to do since he has realised the amount of money which the consistent observance of a sound principle is likely to cost. To a deputation from the executive of Hip 'association in 1917, nnd in reply to n suggestion that the full pay of ss. per day should be paid to those men of the Main Body who drew' only 4s. per day for the first months in camp, the Minister stated that he fully recognised the soundness of the association's claim, but asked that owing to congestion of work in the Department it should not be pressed. In this the association acquiesced without prejudice to (he presumption of the request. So far as we are aware the Minister of Defence has never.ventured to put, forward publicly his reasons for refusing to grant retrospection. Such as may be discovered have been dealt with in this letter. The. association has put forward n case which i« dpiiinnstmblv Just and has never been controverted, and it resents very strongly the attitude nf the M'nisler whHi comnels it to devote much time and enerey to STiirip™ for dependants of married inon a demand which, had the Miuister been ".aided more hv principle than by parsimony, it should never have been necessary even to ask for.