JUSTICE!

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10281, 16 May 1919, Page 8

JUSTICE!

FOR SOLDIERS CHILDREN RETURNED SOLDIERS' ASSOCIATION v. MINISTER, "Apparently," states Mr Douglas Seymour (general secretary of the New Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association), "the Minister for Defence has definitely refused to grant the request for the extension of retrospective allowances to include children of the early volunteers. As there is now a deadlock between the Minister and the K.S.A.. the association has been obliged to appeal to Parliament. Therefore the following statement is being sent to each member in the hope that. Parliament will press for a full measure of justice in tho payment of retrospection :

"The participation of New Zealand in the war and the necessity that a, force should be dispatched without delay made it necesaary for the early, volunteers to leave it entirely to those who remained behind to decide what should constitute a 'square deal'.:for the soldier. In October, 1917, mainly through the efforts of the Second Division League, Parliament authorised a substantial increase in the meagre scale of pensions and allowances.then in force. Although authorised in October, 1917, the increases became operative only from January Ist, 1918, making it clear that they were introduced to apply to the members of the Second Division who were especteel to enter camp about that date. "Thj concessions of the Government to public pressure have furnished convincing evidence in support of the accusation that to secure the, necessary complement of reinforcements it continuously improved the inducements offered, while it has declined to make them available to all concerned. It is utterly inequitable that the men who 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. "The retrospective application of the present scale 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.—The obvious inaccuracy, not to say insincerity of this argument is shown by the. fact that out of ai vote "of something in excess of two millions for gratuity, etc., only some £440,000. subsequently increased to about £500,000, could be spared 'in lieu'; of retrospection. . . \. '""'■' ) "(b) That the administration\swquld be too difficult for tho department to copo 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 soldier. It would not bo necessary that nil should be dealt with at once, and the dislocation due to tho inevitably large reduction of Defence Department staff on the of Ihe war could be reduced materially bv this' work.

*"{cV That the allowances are npt really needed.—Allowance* to familv dependents are by right, not need.

/ "{d\ That the early volunteers were not compelled to go and agreed to O-o conditions then offering.—The conditions were not 'agreed to' because they were not specified. Tho trust of the soldier, invited and freely given, at least presupposed equality of treatment to all.

"e) That the increased cost of living is _tho reason for tlio amended scale, which accordingly 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 soale was not based merely upon the increased cost of living, and by the scale of it.v increases recognised the inadequacy of the'Previous scheme apart from the cost of, living. "It is within the memory of the association that the Minister for Defence at an earlier stage and in reference to a relatively , inexpensive proposal was able-to recognise the Justice of the retrospective principle much more clearly than he has been able to do since he has realised th© 'nmount of moneys which the consistent observance, of a sound principle is likely to cost. So far as wo are aware t&o Minister for Defence has never ventured to put forward publicly, his reasons; for refusing to grant retrospection. Such reasons r>s may be discovered have be«n dealt with in this letter. The association has' put forward a#cas'e which is demonstrahlv just and has never been controverted, and it resents very strongly the attitudo of the Minister which compels it to devote much time and energy to securing for d°r.endents of mnrried men a demand which had the. Minister been fruided more by principle than by parsimony, it should" never have been necessary even to ask for."