CONSERVE OR SPEND?

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 277, 17 August 1921, Page 6

CONSERVE OR SPEND?

POLICY WITH WAR RELIEF FUNDS TARANAKI CRITICISED At yesterday’s meeting of the Advisory Board of the War Relief Societies, Mr. R. J. F. Aldrich (one of the delegates and secretary of the We .lington Returned Soldiers’ Association) expressed disapproval of the policy pursued by the Taranaki Provincial War Relief Association in the administration of its funds. His principal complaint was that the funds were not being conserved no that assistance should still be available for men who might break down years hence. Mr. W. Power (Taranaki delegate) spoke in defence of the Taranaki policy He said Mr. Aldrich had argued that funds should be conserved for men who broke down within the next twenty years. By that time most returned soldiers would be “broken down’;.that was to say, they would be old' men. He believed that war service shortened life by about ton years. The basis of the Taranaki scheme had been a eash great, the maximum grant being £250. Soldiers suffering “irreducible permanent disability 40 per cent, or over" were admitted, and at a time when it looked as though there was a fair amount of funds in hand, the scheme was extended to come down as low as 20 per cent. The scheme was adopted with a view te winding up the funds. Funds had never been placed in the hands of the societies to be hoarded up for an indefinite period. It had been intended that they- should bo spent. If they were not spent on sick and wounded soldiers it meant that they would be very seriously depleted by administration expepses, which had got out of all proportion. Ho agreed with Mr. Aldrich that there should be no discrimination between the soldiers in different parts. Taranaki in the early days of war funds had been in favour of a Dominion scheme, but unfortunately a Dominion scheme could not be brought into operation, and ns it was tho s; -alter associations that suffered they had got down to the next best thing, viz., a provincial scheme. Taranaki claimed that it had done its best. Vfas it not better to spend tho money on the soldiers than on an army of paid olhCl yr ? V-T Larner (Auckland) snid that Auckland had had to help a number of Taranaki men resident in tho northern city, and Taranaki had declined the applications when they had been sent on. Mr Larner ouoted a few instances. Ho also read the following -’emmu mentions, received by Auckland from Taranaki under date Juno 7, 1921:—“Tho policy of this association' has been previously explained to you, but I would again state that the operations of this association are now confined entirely to the assistance of seriously permanently disabled soldiers in respect to which applications closed on October 20, 1920. As tnere y every indication that the applications 1K hand will probably absorb thp remaining funds, the Executive Committee have decided that no further applications will be considered until all cases in hand as at October 20, 1920, have been finalised. Mr. Larner said that ho did not wish to judge Taranaki, but he thougat that jiossibly Taranaki had not. looked quite far enough’ ahead, and had perhaps distributed tho funds in some directions ros liberally. Perhaps Taranaki had not allowed itself quite enough to meet such cases as he had mentioned. Auckland would like to know whether it was any use referring Taranaki cases to the laianaki Association. . Mr. Aldrich: You could save a lot <t telegrams declining. Mr- Power said, in reply to Mr. Larner that Taranaki had opened up a late application list, and in the case of any of the applicants who disclosed me(lucibln permanent disability of 4.0 per cent, or over the association would consider making a grant. Th? association had gone so far as to give these late applicants preference to other applicants whoso disability was below 40 per cent.