SOLDIERS' GRATUITY BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 September 1919, Page 4

SOLDIERS' GRATUITY BILL.

COMPARISONS WITH CANADA' ? .GREATLY FAVOR NEW ZEALAND^ (By; Wire—Own Correspondent.) Wellington, Latt Nlgnt. Sir James Allen said, in opening the soldiers' gratuities debate, that the men who served on the Philomel would receive the same gratuity as members of tho Expeditionary Force. The soldiers who had been in hospital in New Zealand after disembarkation were also covered, he thought, by the provision that a minimum gratuity for 18 months should be paid whatever the date of disembarkation, but if this provision did not do full justice to all the men lie hoped to get over the difficulty. He had been in consultation with his officers on the « point. He made a comparison between fi the New Zealand and Canadian rates. He quoted first some figures that he had \ already given in a slightly different form, * showing the Canadian gratuity to a single man as against the New Zealand gratuity plus New Zealand's extra pay, . privilege leave, and railway concessions, | The comparisons were as follows: Canadian N.Z. M.S. Period Gratuity Gratuity. Tottl & b. d. £ s. d. £«. d n months .. 43 15 0 2! ! 6 48 I « 23 months .. 58 6 8 52 10 U 8010 « 33 months .. 72 18 4 79 17 a 115 1 8 47 months .. 87 10 0 107 8 8 100 8 • 4 years 278 days .... 87 10 0 ISO & 6 ITB U 1 The Canadian Government paid a separate allowance to the wile, but not to the child of a soldier, whereat New Zealand paid separation allowance to both wife and child. In making a comparison between the Canadians and New Zealand payments to the married private without children, the Minister credited Canada with an advantage in the amount of separation allowance and New Zealand with extra pay, privilege leave, railway, concessions, and separation allowance during the period of privilege leave. HU comparison was as follows for a private without children:— Period. Canada. N.Z. £ s. d. £ «. d. 11 months 76 16 8 41 8 1 23 months 98 2 6 84 ( 8 35 months 114 4 8 110 S S 48 months 130 210 184 ( 0 4 yean 278 days .... 132 8 8 188 17 1 The comparison became much more favorable to New Zealand if there were children to be taken into account. The Canadian soldier received no separation allowance for children, whereas the New | Zealand soldier received an additional sum for each child on the following scale:— Period Each ehtUL £ ». d. 11 months 25 8 6 23 months St 10 t 35 months 79 17 6 47 months 107 6 6 47 months 107 8 ( 4 years 278 days ...... ISO 6 • The difference in the total emolument of a married private with children in Canada and New Zealand was shown in the following figures, the comparison being in favor of New Zealand in all cases, except the first sum in the first column:— Period One Two Three Months. Child. Children. Children. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d 11 .. 6 1 0 38 18 5 84 811 23 .. 40 15 2 95 T 2 149 1» t 35 .. 87 7 0 169 0 0 259 19 7 47 .. 133 12 6 243 011 352 1« ft The Minister added that, in addition to the moneys already mentioned, financial assistance had been granted to New Zealand soldiers in cases of hardship. As from January 10, 1917, the average annual payment per applicant had been £3O. Canada had no scheme of financial assistance. New Zealand's financial assistance was a gift to the soldiers, and did not require to be repaid. The estimated total of the war service gratuity in Canada was roughly £2Q,000„ 000. The New Zealand total was slightly more than £6,000,000. The Canadian Lk gratuity, on a population basis, ought w to amount to £42,000,000 to equal tint New Zealand liability. The Minister mentioned that the home service gratuity was included in the Canadian total, but not in the New Zealand total. If this amount were deducted, the comparison would be increas- > ingly in New Zealand's favor. The Mini** ster, in conclusion, stated what New/ Zealand had- done for the soldiers under the repatriation and pensions schemes.