RETURNED SOLDIERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10290, 27 May 1919, Page 6

RETURNED SOLDIERS

ANNUAL CONFERENCE GOVERNMENT SEVERELY CRITICISED. Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, May 20. The annual conference of tho New Zealand Returned Soldiers’ Association opened to-day, Dr Boxer presiding. There are about sixty delegates present. They were welcomed by the Mayor. REPATRIATION ACT “AN ABSOLUTE ABORTION.” The president. Dr E. Boxer (Hastings), in moving the adoption of tho report, said that the qualities winch had distinguished the New Zealand Force would now have to be applied in civil matters. The great question of 1919 was the Repatriation Act, brought down in December. It was carried in a rough and tumble scramble, and was an absolute abortion. The exigencies of the situation, however, made necessary a measure of support by tho association with the right of criticism reserved. Tho Government had had three years’ experience in repatriating men and at the end ot 1918 had done practically nothing in that direction. That was the Government’s own condemnation. The as sociation did not see why tho Government should sacrifice efficiency to political beliefs. He hoped to see a single Minister responsible for repatriation, co-ordinating the whole scheme in his own person. It was not until the Armistice forced their hands that tho Government rushed through the December, 1918, scheme. Patriotic boards had been doing the work that the Government should have been doing for three years. When the Government sought to sweep up the moneys into their own coffers, they should have it made clear to them that such was not their right, seeing that these bodies had been doing the Government’s work. Whenever tho Government found a private body ready to carry on their work, they washed their hands of the work, and said “Carry on.” Tho president urged the engagement of a well-paid secretary. He also urged strong support of “Quick March,” the association’s official organ. The association’s representation on various bodies was extremely good, but he hoped to see the day when every Land Board in New Zealand would have a member of tho association thereon. He urged loyal support of the local associations, and greater interest in matters affecting soldiers’ interests.

Mr Batten (Wellington) In seconding the adoption of the report, said it was a matter for congratulation that the association had never heckled or embarrassed > the Government. He urged the need for greater publicity regarding the work of the association, not only through “Quick March,” but through other papers. MANY PROBLEMS DISCUSSED. The motion for the adoption of the report and balance-sheet was discussed at very great length. Land settlement was the basis of repatriation, and it was hoped to see a definite policy laid down. Mr Andrew (Auckland) said that the report was disappointing. Everything tile previous Conference had instructed the executive to do they had tried to carry out, but had met with great difficulties. . The Government had not done its duty regarding retrospective allowances. The association had a great task ahead and if it could not get juftice during next year it would never get it. Mr McManus (Dunedin) said he regretted that nothing had been said about the creation of new industries or the expansion of old industries. 'Em Government policy had been one of inaction with regard to repatriation. In the matter of land there was an urgent need for direct representation for land had been purchased at fictitious values based on w T ar profits. It was possible that the soldier would make a living while prices were high, but when prices came down ho might bo faced with ruination. Mr Miller (Taieri) said that the Government had alienated the sympathy of the country and had done absolutely nothing for the returned soldiers. Commission agents should be cut out from dealings with land for returned soldiers.

Mr Loadley (Christchurch) said that the Christchurch Association had initiated the proposal to settle soldiers at poultry farming in Canerbury, but it had b*an turned down. If there had been one Minister in charge of repatriation the matter could have boon dealt with more expeditiously. Mr Leadley remarked that the Government’s concessions regarding retrospective allowances had been extracted by throats, and if justice could hot bo got otherwise he boliovedi in using throats and backing them up._ Determination was needed in fighting the Government.

Mr Brown (Wanganui) said It was the second 'mortgage which presented the main difficulty to returned men. Mr Lnycook (Palmerston North) said that the newspapers seemed to delight In giving publicity to returned soldiers’ offences. There was a tremendous gamble going on with regard to land values. .

Mr Luxford (Waikato) saidi that the land boards and not the repatriation boards were doing the work of repatriation. Tho position in regard to pensions was absolutely wrong. Mr Luxford suggested the appointment of an exclusive organising secretary in addition to tho general secretary. Mr Dnlhousio (Auckland) regretted that so little had been accomplished by the executive, but tho fault lay with Parliament.

Air Jacobs (Palmerston North) said there had been two little constructive criticism. Returned soldiers wore almost ns much to blame aa the Government, for even at this day tho association had no definite proposals to put to the department. He advocated the compulsory acquisition of land for soldiers.

Mr Long (Auckland) regretted tho failure of the report to mention nursing sisters nnd urged the association to take up their case. Ho condemned the departmental beads for obstruction in (lie matter of repatriation, and said the Public Service Commissioner had declared that girls were so satisfactory ns clerks thnt there was little possibility of returned soldiers getting positions in tho Public Service. Mr Pridham (Wanganui) said tho public revenue must not he got from soldiers, but from “stay-at-homes.” Mr Reid (Rlonheim) deprecated the criticism of the executive, declaring thnt probably most district associations wanted cleaning nrt.

Mr Seymour (general secretary) re-' plying to the criticism ro tho lateness

of the report, said that the Marten branch had made no returns whatever during the year, and its delegates were therefore not eligible to vote. At a later stage an explanation was offered by the Marion delegates, who were permitted to remain. Mr Harper (Wellington) said the executive welcomed constructive criticism. It had done a huge amount of work, and after all the association must depend on the general public for assistance, and tho work of the executive in influencing public opinion could not be over-estimated. He denied tbe allegation of a Waikato delegate who said that one soldier’s pension had been stopped on the report of a policeman. , It was the duty of the Waikato branch to have reported the matter promptly, but he had telegraphed for full information. Referring to the Wellington deputation on retrospective allowances, Mr Harper said that Sir James Allen had left tho room before Mr Fox made his statement, and credit for the Minister’s altered attitude was due to Mr Clinkard’s suggestion that justice should be done to married men before gratuities were considered. Mr Moiling (Auckland) replied that Mr Clinkard had admitted that Mr Fox’s threat had carried the day. Ho urged that vocational training should bo taken out of tho hands of Mr W. H. Montgomery and placed under the Repatriation Board, where Mr Montgomery might get a. much more useful post. Mr Stringer (Waikato) said -the association was up against tho need for direct representation on land boards. The motion to adopt the report was carried and the Conference proceeded to appoint committees. On the election of the land committee there was a protest that only one South Island member was nominated, and the committee was therefore enlarged to give more even representation. ANNUAL REPORT. The annual report presented at the conference of delegates to the Returned Soldiers’ Association contains severe criticism of the Government for its hasty legislation last session. The executive, says, the report, has consistently urged upon the Government and people generally the imperative need for providing at tho earliest possible date machinery for repatriation. Tho Government has created a Department of Repatriation with greater regard for political consideration than efficient administration. The repatriation policy had not been enunciated because the Government has none to put forward, and any constructive suggestions made have come chiefly from tho association and representatives of repatriation committees. After dealing with the cost of living, particularly as it affected tho soldier, the report refers to the future. “The radical remodelling of our social system,” it says, “is imperative, and for a long period to come industrial unrest is likely to be such as both to threaten the whole economic basis of society and create uncomfortable conditions' for those whose positions in the social organism are not relatively well paid and secure.” It was to be regretted that the Government had given no indication that it realised this position. The problem of repatriation would reach a critical stage in a few months, but so far as preparations by those responsible were concerned, indications were that it would be sheer good luck if there was not serious trouble with regard to land settlement. Insufficient data was available to judge of the success or otherwise of tho scheme of settling soldiers. Certain features of the administration of the Land Department called for severe comment. The demand for land by returned soldiers is no casual one to bo satisfied through the ordinary channels of land exchange.