The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1917. DEPENDENTS' ALLOWANCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 October 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1917. DEPENDENTS' ALLOWANCES.

It is, as stated by the Prime Minister in the House on Tuesday night, a matter for regret that there should have been any bargaining spirit imported into the question of providing for the dependents of married soldiers. It would have been quite unnecessary had the Government duly realised its duty in this respect, and revised the scale of pensions and allowances in good time. The Minister for Defence once said that the Military Service Acts were working so satisfactorily that there was no intention of altering them, and an integral part of the Acts is the provision for pension and separation allowances, whilst subsequently Sir James Allen ventured the opinion that the adoption of the principles of the British pensions scheme in a democratic immtry like New Zealand would not meet with favor. The Go> eminent then was quite satisfied to leave things as they were, and only moved in these important matters when the Second Divine,! reservists, growing apprehensive of tho Government's intentions, formed themselves linto an organisation and made their wishes felt. Now, having (ailed in giving the country a lead, the Government grows indignant with the Second Division League for, as they eu- . phemistically term it, "dragooning Cabinet and Parliament." The fault rests entirely with Cabinet, and not with the League, which surely cannot be blamed for seeking to have justice done to the dependents of the soldiers. Have they not an equal right to that of, say, the Six O'Clock Party, to represent their views to Cabinet and' Parliament? To pretend that the married men, or single men cither, were satisfied with the existing conditions respecting allowances and pensions, is to betray ignorance of the men's state of mind. The provisions were lamentably inadequate, and but for the assistance given by patriotic societies many of the families of the men at the front would have been at .poverty point. The Second Division League made proposals for the improvement of the pen. sions for disablement and at death, and asked that certain principles should be followed in the allocation of the pensions. Tiie Government —|o its credit, be it said—accepted the proposals, and, with certain desirable alterations and additions, these have been -put through (he House. 'For this result, the Government, if it ipiossessed any gratitude, Rhould thank the League for the assistance given instead of seeking to place it in a false position in the eyes of the country, as the two leaders did, perhaps unwittingly, on Tuesday. The leaders' attitude, of course, was dictated by a desire not to impose additional financial burdens on the country that would result from granting Os a day separation allowance for wives and Is 6d for children, as suggested by the Second Division. The Finance Minister stated the additional amount required to give effect to the proposal would be' a million, but he did not make it .plain, as he might have done, that separation allowances come out of loan and not out of revenue, and that whilst an additional million might be added to the war debt only fifty thousand sterling would become an annual charge on the country. No warning was issued regarding the growing cost of materials and munitions, nor of the additional four millions unexpected liability that was recently sprung upon the country. The country can accent the rwDonsitiility for the Dig debts

with resignation, lint when it comes to .:i:ikiny provision for the wives anil chililren of the soldiers it is an entirely diflerent mailer. Then, lve arc told, the iost is altogether too heavy for the country to bear; that if persisted in New Zealand will go to the ''deninition bowwows," and all the reet of it. We cannot afford it! Of course we cannot. We cannot stfford war; it is altogether too great a luxury. But we have to. Lhat is the point; and, being so, what right has the country to ask one section of the community to make a dual sacrifice? Families are expected to give up their breadwinners and to subsist on 3s a plus what the soldiers can spare from their pay. at the most another 3s, or i-i a day, together with any assisance obtainable from the Financial Assistance Board. In the pensions scheme the Government grants a minimum of £2 for widows 1 with children and 10s for children, yet offers but £1 Is as a straight out allowance to a wife and only 7s for a ohild. When dead a soldier's child iis therefore worth 10s; when alive only 7s. In abnormal times, when everything .s dear, the allowance is 7s; when normal times return the pension is lOsi Where is the consistency? Pensions, too, come out of revenue; tut allowances come out of loan. A married soldier's pay, surely, should be treated similarly to that of a single soldier, to be used or set apart as desired. Instead, the Government say to the soldier:—"At least 3s of the 5s you must. hand over for the support of your wife; your pay is therefore 2s If your wife and family cannot live on 6s we will consider an application for rent, interest, etc." That, we submit, is not a fair attitude. The families of our soldiers should not have to go before any board and ask for assistance, except in exceptional circumstances; the State should provide a fair and reasonable allowance. If it did, the work of the Financial Assistance Board would be considerably reduced. The proposals of the Government do not meet t'he necessities of the case, and are liot calculated to afford Second Division reservists about to be called up that ease Of mind about their homes it is desirable they should possess whilst away fighting.