FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 May 1918, Page 6

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

To the Editor. Sir,—With further reference to my letter of the 26th March, I am advised that in your issue of the Ist April you state that I missed the whole point of the paragraph you printed, namely, that the reservist entered camp in the belief that when the new separation allowances came into force he would he able to leave his wife and family in circumstances that would give Him no causs for anxiety when he left for the front. The chief point in the article under discussion is that in connection with the soldier's civilian earnings, and to this you refer as follows: "The Minister say 3 that the soldier's civilian earnings were £IBO per annum, but the soldier pointed out to us that he would have been entitled to a substantial increase in his wages had he remained in his civilian position." I found it necessary to make independent enquiries, and as a result I have been informed that the reservist was in receipt of the union rate of wages, namely, £2 17s fid per week or £'49 10s per annum, and that he would not have received any increase had he remained with his present employer, who retained his services solely on account of the fact that lie had enlisted and he did not wish him to be out of work during the interval. It will be seen, therefore, that this reservist had no cause whatever to complain; in fact, his wife would he very much better off financially by his military service, seeing that without any grant o£ financial assistance she would have received an income of £155 2s Od for herself and children as against her hushand's civilian earnings of only £149 10s. As from the Ist May the wife's income would have been increased by £lB 5s per annum on account of the increased children's allowance from Is to Is 6d per day. Had the reservist continued to serve with the Expeditionary Force his wife would be receiving £167 15s per annum, and in view of her husband's earnings a request for a grant of financial assistance would be unreasonable and would not be entertained by the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board. lam assured that the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board has not reduced a single grant without full justification, and is at any time prepared to review a case if fresh circumstances are advanced warranting reconsideration.— I am, etc., J. ALLEN, Minister of Defence. Wellington, 13th May. [We are pleased to have a further explanation from the Minister. It is a serious matter to make a deliberate misstatement to support any case, and had the soldier done so in his application to the Financial Assistance Board for assistance he wouw have been entitled to no consideration and rendered himself liable to a severe penalty. But the mistake is not the soldier's, but the Minister's. It is correct for the latter to say that he was in receipt of £14910s a year, wages, but (and this is what has been overlooked by the Minister's advisers) the soldier held a secretaryship which brought his earnings up to £lB6 fifj per annum, or £6 6s more than he stated them to be. The Minister says this is the chief point at issue, but he has made a mistake which, though excusable for him, is hardly excusable on the part of his officers. But there was another point at issue, and it was that though the Government jnado a great song about its liberality in its treatment of the soldier's dependents by increasing the amount of separation allowances, the fact remains that this advantage was immediately nullified by the Financial Assistance Board withdrawing or reducing the amount of financial assistance previously accorded. The soldier's dependents, accordingly, were in very many cases no better off by reason of the granting of the increased separation allowances. Recently, however, we are pleased to acknowledge, the policy of the Financial Assistance Board has, at trie instance of Cabinet, and particularly the Defence Minister, been considerably liberalised and is honestly seeking vj do its duty by the dependents of soldiers.—Ed.j