RETROSPECTIVE MARRIED ALLOWANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 July 1919, Page 7

RETROSPECTIVE MARRIED ALLOWANCE.

PROBLEMS OF DISTRIBUTION, Wellington, July 26. (The Government's intention that retrospective separation allowance grants would be satisfactorily settled about the first week in June has been carried into I effect as far as possible, but through various causes, a number of the applications have not yet been finally dealt with, and may be delayed for some time to come. This has been mainly due, at the outset, to the difficulty—unprecedented in the short history of the Department—in effectually coping with ,the sudden rush of applications which, fron? the time the first payments were made, have poured through the poßt in a seemingly unceasing flow. A further complication has been provided by the necessity of examining past records to a greater extent than was at first anticipated, and enquiries of an exhaustive naturo have > been found essential in a surprisingly large number of cases with the object of deciding who is entitled to receive the various sums affected. Lastly, there are salient features- pf the present scheme which do not as yet appear to be clearly understood by the general public, and. much necessary correspondence, with its attendant delays has resulted. Up to the 14th July, warrants to the number of 0,055 have been issued, representing a total outlay of £275,789. The first estimate provided for the payment of roughly 12,00 claims and for tne I expenditure of £495,00. It may therefore be assumed that slightly less than half the applications are still awaiting final action, and that approximately the same proportion of the moneys originally allocated, has yet to be distributed. Of the above warrants, 390 were for amounts over £IOO, and 110 less than 4459 represented in each case £SO and over. The applications made disclose a good deal of misapprehension regarding the grant. In many cases it has been erroneously assumed that it forms part of the soldier's pay, but as a matter of fact tho present payment represents a Government grant to the wife or guardian concerned, to supplement the assistance already received from the soldier; that it is not payable as a matter of course and cannot be claimed by either of the parties immediately as a matter of right. A certain proportion of the applications included a reference to children's allowance, and mnnv claims have also been received from widowed mothers and other dependents. As indicated however, the present scheme does not provide for a retrospective grant to other than a soldier's wife or to the guardian of his motherless children—and then only whe);e the ordinary separation allowance has been credited to his account. General misapprehension also appears to exist regarding the dates between which the grant is effective. In the first place, payments are made only up to the 31st December, 1917 (wife) and to 30th April, 1!)18 (guardian) as, from the Ist January, and the Ist May, 'l9lß, respectively, the full allowance of 3s a day in each case lias already come into effect. Many claimants have made the error of lodging applications for periods up to the time of discharge or decease after the dates quoted, the erroneous impression having apparently gained ground that the grant is payable in respect of the full period of service. Another important feature which many have overlooked is that payment for any camp period is not included. Thus, the wife of a soldier who sailed with any reinforcement later than the 33rd draft, which embarked at the end of Decern- 1 ber, 1917, is placed outside the scope of the grant. Jn the same way, where the soldier ha? reported for duty after service abroad, nnd has not again embarked, the grant is made effective up to the date of re-entering camp only, and not to also cover his second period of training with a later reinforcement. A somewhat unpleasant phase of the question is that retrospective giiants have been forfeited, on account pf misconduct, or like circumstances. The policy of the Department is such a circumstance that where a wife has been guilty of misconduct (whether the soldier ha? obtained a divorce or otherwise) and there are children to be considered the payment is made through Home responsible person or society. Several of the patriotic organisations in the different centres have, already agreed to thus assist the Department, and a number of cases have been disposed of in this manner. These societies having in practically every instance, a visiting staff of ladies and gentlemen, closely interested in the general welfare of soldiers and their families for over four years, are admirably suited to undertake this fresh responsibility; and it is thus confidently expected that the arrangement will [prove of the greatest benefit to the dopendents affected. In every case where the soldier makes certain allegations against his wife, as grounds for au objection to her receiving the grant, full and impartial investigation is made through a reliable channel. If. the charges are ■ proved, the course outlined above is followed where possible. In no such instance however can the allowance be claimed by the soldier, and, generally speaking, where there are no dependents, the grant is considered to have been <lefinitely forfeited so far as both parties are concerned. Every endeavor is made to treat each claim governed by such circumstances entirely on its merits, and a decision arrived at accordingly. Unexpected difficulties haVc been prodenied where the disbursement!!' of the moneys for motherless children is eoncorned. It has been found that many soldiers who appointed giiaVdiiiiis upon their departure .overseas, to whose guardians (i.e' married allowance) Was paid, have made new arrangements since their return, apd i,hat they have either themselves assumed control or appointed other persons to look after their children. These eases may be brought imder three headings: (1) Application l>.v the guardian who has received the ordinary allowance and is still acting in the capacity. (2) Application by a new guardian who has assumed control since the soldier's return. (3) Applicatipn by the soldier himself, who is again caring indirectly for liis dependents. In either of the first or second instances, application should he made by the guardian, but to avoid unnecessary trouble, it is advisable that this should he supported by a written statement from the soldier confirming the appointment of a guardian, and stating that he is agreeable to the retrospective grant being paid to this person direct for the children's benefit. In the second instance, the authority from the soldier should embrace an explanation of the change of guardianship. Where the soldier himself is the applicant, he should clearly show that his

children are directly under his control. In this event, the Department reserves the right to decide whether the allowance ib to be paid to him direct, or [through some organisation for disbursement in the manner already indicated. ' Applications continue to be received from men who were employed on home service, chiefly on the plea that they were retained in camp, although to all intents and purposes fit for active servio2. Apart from the consideration tnat the general conditions governing the allowance make it perfectly clear that such cases are not provided for in the present scheme, it is emphasised that in a general way, men so treated have already received in the shape of promotion (which in all probability would have been denied them under active service conditions) with its increased pay and allowances and extra duty pay, what is almost, if not more than, the equivalent of the retrospective allowance- This in itself is held to justify the decision not to extend the retrospective grant to men who would thus receive a collective rate of remuneration out of all proportion to the value of their services and to the measure of their sacrifice.