The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1917. THE GO-SLOW GOVERNMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 July 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1917. THE GO-SLOW GOVERNMENT.

A week or two ago Sir James Allen stated that he had no intention of altering the Military Service Act, as it waa working'so well, but evidently contact with members of Parliament lias shown liira that the public do not altogether share his optimistic view, which may account for his statement in Parliament on Tuesday that "it may he necesßaiy to review the standard of pensions and allowances of the Second Division." In a matter bo important one would have expected a lead from the Minister, but this perhaps is too much to hope for from any member of the present Cabinet, Which has lamentably failed to grapple with any of the problems caused by the war. The Ministry has done nothing of its own volition, excepting to prolong its own life and to impose the iniquitous butter-tax upon one of the hardest-worked sections of the community. always [preferring to wait direction from the puiblic. A Government sensible of its duty to those who are fighting the .battles country would before now have brought down a revised and comprehensive scale of separation allowances and pensions, instead of having its hands forced by the marshalling of Second Division reservists. Ik is nothing short of a disgrace to a rich country like New Zealand that it should treat its soldiers so miserably as it does. In the House on Wednesday, Ministers, in reply to questions, said that the provisions of the existing pensions law in New Zealand are for the most part well in advance of similar proposals in England. 'But, they added, any direction in which the New Zealand scheme can be benefited on lines of the British scheme is being carefully considered. If the New Zealand provisions are "well in advance" of those of Britain, why this desire to carefully consider " any direction in which the New Zealand 9','henie can be benefited on lines of the British scheme?" The is that the Government is not honest about the matter. The British scheme is infinitely fairer and more liberal than the New Zealand provisions, as we have repeatedly shown. A widow with or without one child in England can receive up to £1 17s Od a week; in New Zealand the rate is, for a widow 235, and each child 7s 6d. A totally disabled single man can receive in England up to £3 17s 6d a week, plus £1 allowance where an

attendant is required; in New Zealand the maximum for a single or married man is 35b, with 10a special attendant allowance. In Britain a man can claim a pension according to the degree of disablement, as a right; in New Zealand he has to go, cap in hand, to a Pensions Board, and the man with the most plausible tongue scores best. Britain sees to the education and training and medical and dental attention of the soldiers' dependents; in New Zealand the dependents -would, under the present scale, have to 'bo left to the tender mercies of the patriotic societies. A married man is given in this Dominion an allowance of Is a day for his wife and Mi for each ch?)d. The point is, how on earth can tlie dependents live in decency on this wretched pittance? A wife and three children /would Ibe entitled to 17s- Cd a week, plus what the soldier could leave out of his pay of 5s a day. He requires it least 2s fid a day, bo that leaves 17s Gd for his wife and family; therefore they would have the munificent sum of 35s a week to live on. The thing is .preposterous; it simply cannot ibe done in these days t>l increased coat of living. A sovereign goes as far now as 15s did before the war, so that the 35s ds only equal in purchasing power to 26s 6d before the war. Now, is it right or fair that a married man, because he is physically

fit, should hove to leave 'his wife and children in poverty, and the tempt-' ; ons that a condition of poverty produces, and risk his life and limb in the interests of the country, whilst his neighbor, militarily unfit, is able to go on the even tenor of his way, maintain his former • standard of living, and educate and guard his children? Where is the equality of sacri&e? The men left behind should be called upon to pay for the adequate support of the soldiers' dependents, and it is the Government's duty to so arrange things that he does. The Government has no right to call upon one section to sacrifice practically everything and allow other sections to fro scot free. New Zealand can afford as few countries can afford to treat its soldiers and their dependents liberally; it should be glad to do so, for the most it can do after all represents very little to the mother who has given her son, the wife that has given her husband, the children that have given their father. It is monstrous that, in addition to this sacrifice, they should be condemned to a life of penury because of the failure of the Government to recognise its bounden and obvious duty.