Repatriation of Soldiers

Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1922, Page 4

Repatriation of Soldiers

(To the Editor). Sir,—lf I conveyed to .Mr,lames Begg and Mr E. F. Dutliie, incut hors of the Otago District Repatriation Board, as I apparently did, in the article you published for me a fortnight or so ago the impression that I did not warmly appreciate the very valuable assistance they and members of other Repatriation Boards had given towards discharging the country’s obligation to tho returned soldiers thou I must have expressed myself very clumsily. It is true my main purpose in writing was not to reiterate the eulogies that had been pronounced by the Prime Minister, and by everyone else acquainted with the facts, upon the invaluable services rendered, gratuitously and at great personal sacrifice, by these gentlemen. Perhaps I was too ready to take all this for granted, having seen with my own eyes the obligations under which the members of the Boards had placed the whole community by their efforts on behalf of the returned soldiers. I trust Mr Begg and Mr Dutliie will believe that on this point I am writing with full knowledge and perfect sincerity. Of course my critics are entitled to their own opinion in thinking I am quite mistaken in believing the work of the Repatriation Department could now he carried on much more cheaply and at least ns efficiently were it transferred to one of the permanent Departments. But having examined the position again, carefully and certainly without any personal bins, f am more than ever satisfied my contention is correct. Mr Begg and Mr Dutliie seem to imagine

that if the work wore taken over by the Advances to Settlers Department, for instance, the records and experience of the Repatriation Department would lie

; lest, its sympathetic administration rej versed and all its kindly, helpful services' discontinued. With the utmost j deference to my critics I am hound to say there is not the slightest shadow of a reason for this assumption. The policy of the Advances to Settlers Department towards iho returned man still would lie dictated by the same kindly, patriotic authority that dictates the policy of the Repatriation Department now. Many of us may differ in one particular or'another from the political views of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bands, hut not one of us,l veiituVe to say, doubts for a single moment the sincerity of their desire to help the soldiers ill every wav possible. It all resolves itself, therefore, into a question of cost. Could the services at present being rendered to the relumed men he supplied more cheaply by one of the permanent Departments than they are lieing supplied by the Repatriation Department. Mr Begg and Mr Dutliie, judging from their experience and observation in Otago and Southland—where, 1 am free to admit, the local administration has been particularly good—think they could not. An examination of the accounts as a whole, however, makes it pelTv'l.v clear, that a very large sum, estimated at many thousand pounds a year, would he saved by one of the permanent Departments taking over the whole business.

This would not involve the loss of I lie services of such voluntary workers .ns Mr Hcgg si ml Mr Online. The ndviee ol these gentlemen, one of the most j valuable assets of (he Itepatiiation Department, would heeonie one of the most valnnhlo assets of the permanent Depart ment to which the continuance of the henelieial work were entrusted, l! is not fair to suggest that a permanent Department would he less well <lisposed towards the returned men than a temporary Department has hoon. It is an oflieer of a permanent Department that has been controlling the temporal;,Repatriation Department a,nd there would he no reason why the services < ■ this gentleman should not he retained it the .Minister thought that course desirable. In conclusion let me just remind mv critics that it was with the crying tie si lor economy in administrative expenditure that I was chiefly concerned when I last wrote. This need looks even more urgent after reading the report of Mr Massey’s speech in the 11 oust; of Representatives on Friday than it did two or three weeks ago. When the Prime .Minister reports a drop of over six millions in the last year’s revenue, predicts a further a fttrljier drop of two millions this year, thinks the suspension o! the payment of the sinking funds not altogether out of the question, doubts the ability of the country to continue hearing its huge burden of superannuation, and offers little hope of ally relief from the present crippling load of taxation, it is absolutely necessary that the pruning knife should he applied unsparingly where any branch or even twig of unnecessary expenditure can lie I lopped off. That is the hluiit, hard fact before the country, and the country cannot afford to trifle with it any longer.

I am etc., YOUR CONTRIBUTOR Wellington, July 3rd.