The Daily News. FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1918. SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 May 1918, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1918. SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS.

Married men liable for military service will derive cold comfort from the reply of the Defence Minister to the claims of the Second Division League. The Minister refuses the request for a straight-out allowance of two guineas a week for the upkeep of the soldier's wife, but states that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to improvements in the repatriation scheme, particularly to those returned men who cannot be placed in suitable positions, thus removing the fear a soldier may have that on discharge he will not be in a position to provide for his dependents. The league submitted a scheme under which every soldier on his return was to have his pay and allowances continued for a period of three months to enable him to reenter civil life, and, in cases where a suitable position could not be obtained in that time, local boards constituted for the purpose should have the power of recommending an extension. The need for an

increase in a wife's allowance would not be so urgent were the policy of the Financial Assistance Board changed. At present the board meets, in cases of need, recurring obligations, so that (to quote Sir James Allen) a minimum nett income of £9O is left to a wife after rent and insurances are provided for. The league asked that the mimimum be increased to £IOB, thus allocating a wife £2 2s a week, clear of recurring liabilities, instead of £llss, a sum which, it is contended, is insufficient for a woman to live upon in these times. The Minister says the £9O is to stand, explaining that it is a minimum only. Sir James Allen is quite candid. He says the Government wishes to encourage wives to take up work during the absence of their husbands on active service, at least those wives without children. If the 35s a ■\Veek is all the Government is prepared to offer a wife she will have no alternative but to go out and work, for it would be impossible for her to subsist on 355, seeing that the pound note has shrunk to a value of 13s. Is this fair to the married soldier who is making in most cases a very considerable pecuniary sacrifice, or fair to his wife? No doubt both would be willing to make the sacrifice, provided the State called upon other sections to bear their just proportion of |he war burden. But the State is not doing so; hence the claim of the Second Division League that either the wife's separation allowance should be increased by 3s a day, or the mimimum raised by the Financial Assistance Board from 35s to £2 2s per week, with a definite undertaking on the part of the Government to provide for the soldier on his return. These were the issues placed before the Government. The first has been refused, as has the increase of the minimum financial assistance, whilst the repatriation proposals are to be kept "steadily in view." The claims of the Second Division were eminently just, and their refusal reflects no credit upon the Gof eminent, which alone has the power to compel all to bear the burden of the war in proportion to their means and ability. As it is, the Government simply asks the dependents of the soldiers to lower their standard of living and endure hardship, or go out and earn their living, whilst from the great mass of people comparatively nothing is asked. The policy of the Government is all the more inexplicable by reason of the fact that an extra 3s a day for 30,000 wives would entail an additional interest and sinking fund of £82,000 a year; or Is 6d per head of the population; equal to one week's war profit on wool or on meat; or half the money spent on new motor cars in the first quarter of this year; or onethird of the value of whisky imported in the three months; or just about the value of the cigarettes that were imported; about as much as is put through the totalisator of the Taranaki or Egmont race meetings. The Defence Minister says the present allowances are based on the average wage of the artisan, namely, £3 a week. A woman with two children receives £3 3s (£1 Is own allowance, £1 Is children's allowance, and £1 Is from husband's pay), which is equal in these times to £2 2s a week, and we submit that it is impossible for her to maintain a house, keep herself and children, educate them, and care I for them as they should be cared for, and obtain any enjoyment out of life on this amount. As for saving for her husband's return, that is out of the question. She is condemned to a struggle from the day her husband goes into camp. The country has no right to expect this of the dependents of the men fighting its battles, but, on the contrary, has every justification for seeing that the dependents should be maintained quite as well as, if not better than, they were before, for in giving their breadwinner they are giving what cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. What is more, we believe the country as a whole is quite prepared, despite the remonstrances of the few, to adequately provide for the dependents of the men called up.