DEPENDENTS' ALLOWANCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 April 1918, Page 7

DEPENDENTS' ALLOWANCES.

STATEMENT BY DEFENCE \ MINISTER. The. ? fillister for Defence (Sir .James Allen) writes to Ihp editor under date of Maxell 2ii, as follows: — Sir, —My attention has been drawn to an article that appeared in the "Evening Post" of the 15th instant relative to a Tar.uiaki Second Division reservist whose grant of financial assistance has been rescinded by the Soldiers Financial Assistance Board. The Taranaki Daily News is alleged t,o have reported;—" The wife now finds herself in practically no better position than before . . . This is not an isolated ease. It is going on everywhere." The ease could be identified as that of a corporal who applied for financial assistance on the Dth July, 1917, to meet rent £32 10s pex annum. • Dependents were shown as wife and two children aged three years and eleven months respectively. The only other obligation was fire insurance, yearly premium 7s (id. The full rent was authorised by the Board leaving the wife in receipt of:— Allotment, 3s 6d per day, separation allowance, Is per day, children's allowance Is 6d per day; 6s per day or £lO9 10s per annum, Under the new allowances, the wife's income was increased on Ist January by £45 12s fid, and the Board, after reviewing the case rescinded its grant of £32 10s, leaving a net increase in the wife's income of £l3 2s Cd per annum. The statement to the effect that "the wife now finds Herself in practically no better position than before" is, therefore, incorrec„, for she has benefited to the extent of 5s per week. The wife's military income amounts to £155 2s 6d per annum for the maintehauce of herself and two young children. It should be noticed that the reservist's civil income was £l3O < per annum, whereas the combined military income of himself and wife amounts to T2OO 15s per annum exclusive of the husband's food ancl clothing. You will readily see that a good deal of unnecessary and unjust criticism will arise if particulars of applications for financial assistance are published as supplied by the applicants .themselves, and, in support of my contention, the foregoing facts of the case in question amply remove any cause for complaint on the part of the reservist. With reference to the further alleged statement:— "This is not an isolated case. It is goinp on everywhere." I shall be pleased to investigate any cases l which you consider have been unfairly treated by the Soldiers Financial Assistance Board.

We are indebted to the Minister for the foregoing statement, but we are ljouad to point out that he misses the whole point of the paragraph we printed. It is that the reservist in question entered camp in the belief that when the new separation allowances came into force, he would be able to leave his wife and family in circumstances that would give him no cause for anxiety when he left for the front, but he actually found that when the extra allowances became available the assistance he was accorded by the Financial Assistance Board was promptly slopped, leaving his wife and family practically no better off than they were before. In other words, the Government gave an extra separation allowance with the one hand and took it back with the other. At the time the neyr separation allowances and pensions were being discussed. the Minister assured Parliament that the Financial Assistance Board would continue to deal with applications in a liberal spirit, and it was because of this assurance that many members agreed to the three shillings a day separation allowance for wives and one shilling for children. The Second Division League, however, stood for adequate separation allowances with les3 dependence on the discretion of the Financial Assistance Board, apprehending what has happened, namely, the cancelling of grants as soon as the new scale of allowances came into operation. Had the Government at the time not made such a song of its munificence to dependents, the present action of the Financial Assistance Board would not be open to the same objection, but a good many recruits accepted the, declarations at their face value; and are now disillusioned and disappointed..

Reverting to the case under notice, the figures submitted by the Minister appear satisfactory, until they are Sir James Allen holds that a married man should be able to get along with Is 6d a day and leave the other 3b fid of his pay to his wife to supplement the separation allowance of 3s. It does not work out that way. This particular man found that whilst in camp —he now has leave — it cost him over 3s per day, and lie could only send his wife 2s and 3s when he received his corporal's stripes. He worked it out as follows: Smokes (per week) 3s Od; coffee and canteen 3s; week end ss; contribution to hut pool (for extra rations) 2s fid; hut orderly Is; soap, blacking, bra.;s polish, etc., 33; extra, clothes and odds and ends he had to buy making up the difference. Of course these are extras, but in actual practice are found to be necessities, and though the items may vary when a man is in lingland or France, the total is more likely to be greater than less, most men finding it necessary to send home for money to meet extra expenses when on leave. To say, therefore, that Is (id per day is sufficient is not to recognise the facts of actual experience. According to the Minister the wifo'a military income is | £155 per annum for the maintenance of herself and her two children. The Minister makes out that the reservist is £2O better off than when in civilian employment, but if his necessarily increased expenditure is taken into account it will be seen that his income is short by the £32 which the Financial Assistance Board has taken away. The soldier showed that he hr,d asked the Financial Assistance Board to meet the premium and loading on a £2OO policy on his life, but his application was refused. As he would not leave without taking out an assurance policy, his wife would have been left with £122 to live upon, pay rent, and keep and educate two children. In ordinary times, no doubt, she could have managed, but with a forty per cent, increase in the cost of living it would have gone very hard with her. The Minister says that the soldier's civilian earnings were £IBO per annum, but the soldier pointe 1 out to.us that he would lifue been entitled (o a substantial increase in his wages had he remained in his civilian position. But that is not the point. It is that the Government should provide adequately for the maintenance of soldiers' wives and children. This it was shown by the Second Division Leagd'i in Wellington last month, and by some cases that have conic under our notice, if js lior, doing. There is a simple ,-;\y out Let the Govermcnt increase thcs.'paration allowance for wii"s to Js per d.y and children to Is 6d—who in th.-.se

times can support a cliild on 7s per week? —and there will be 110 need for the great balk of ilie married men to trouble the Financial Absistance Board at all. The extra 2s given last session has in. most cases been of no practical benefit, giuee financial assistance advanced before has \)6en automatically stopped. The worst feature of the matter is that the Government makes capital out of the "generous" way in which it is behaving to soldiers' dependents, while, in fact, it is doing "just as little for them as it possibly can. We ask that if the Government cannot see its way to increase the allowances it should at least interpret the regulations in a liberal spirit, ensuring adequate provision for dependents while their husbands or fathers are away fighting for us.