REPATRIATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 November 1919, Page 11

REPATRIATION.

R.S.A. CRITICISM. MINISTER SETS OUT BOARD'S POLICY. In August last a deputation from the New Zealand executive waited upon members of Cabinet in reference to repatriation affairs, and a full reply was promised to the R.S.A. requests. At a recent meeting of the Dominion executive of the N.Z.R.S.A. a resolution was passed commenting upon the delay of the Ministers concerned in dealing with the points raised, and lengthy correspondence has since passed between the R.S.A. and the chairman of the Repatriation Board. In the course of his reply, the Hon. W*. H; Herries denied that the R.S.A. executive' had been ignored, explaining that the matters referred to had required time for consideration and necessary inquiries. The letter sets out the board's replies to the various questions raised as follows I'll) The board is of opiuion that direct action to terminate the employment of women who have taken up appointments during the war is not necessary, desirable or practicable. The experience of the officers of the Repatriation Department all goes to show that on the whole employers in the Dominion are honorably fulfilling their obligations with respect to their soldier employees. All Government departments are giving preference of employment to discharged soldiers wherever possible. (2) The board, after full inquiry, does not consider it necessary or desirable to increase the unemployment sustenance allowance as suggested. It has to be clearly remembered that this is a sustenance grant during unemployment only and is in no sense a wage. Here, again, experience has shown that there is very little recourse to this form of financial assistance. (3) The board is unable to recommend the Government to increase the maximum of loan for business purposes to £SOO. I would point out that this assistance is intended to help with small businesses. It is obviously impossible for the department to finance large concerns. Already the board has approved of loans to 1890 discharged soldiers, aggregating an advance of £427,824. An examination of these loans shows that between 65 per cent, and 70 per cent, of them are for less than the present maximum of £3OO, thus showing that in the majority of cases the present maximum is sufficient- for the soldiers' requirements. I think your association will agree that if the limit was raised to £SOO the latter amount would still be inadequate in some cases, and that other arrangements for extra finance would still have to be made. In view of the heavy financial risk involved in these advances there must be some limit, and the board thinks, and experience proves, that the present maximum is a fair and reasonable one. I may point out that Australia is the only other country that makes provision for loans for businesses for discharged soldiers and that its maximum advance is £l5O in ordinary cases and £250 in special cases. (4) The request that all applications fa 1 the purchase of urban and suburban properties should be dealt with by the Repatriation Department has been referred to the consideration of the Hon. Minister for Lands, who desires to take the fullest advantage of the organisation of the Repatriation Department in connection with the purchase of dwellings for soldiers. (6) The board is of opinion, as the result of its''inquiries and of the experience of the department, that the present loan of £SO free of interest for the purchase of furniture is sufficient to meet the urgent needs of soldiers. (6) The board has already approved of sustenances being paid to any dependant of a soldier who had established prewar dependency and thus qualified for payable by the Defence Department to soldiers during service with the N.Z.E.F. By an amendment introduced this session into the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Amendment Bill, which has now passed both Houses of Parliament the term "discharged soldier" in the Repatriation Act has been extended to include the widowed mother of a deceased soldier. (7) In view of the experience of the last nine months the board sees no reason whatever to recommend any change in the present system of control of the Repatriation Department. On the contrary the undoubted success of the administration is a strong argument in favor of continuing the present control. You are no doubt aware that two returned soldiers are now members of the Ministerial Board of Control.

THE ASSOCIATION'S REJOINDER. To the foregoing statement the general secretary of the Returned Soldiers' Association (Mr. D. Seymour) replied:— (1) Women in Employment.—The Association never intended, unless forced to do so, to ask to leave their employment. The matter is not pressed at present. (2) Sustenance Grant.—The fact that this grant is seldom required surely is an additional argument that when required, it should be adequate. (3) Increase of Business Loan.—We note the fact that some £427,824 has been advanced for this purpose. There is, of course, a heavy financial risk involved, but our representatives on the various hoards assure us that very few losses are being made, and that in the great majority of cases interest and principal is being repaid. Cases are reported to my Association where the soldiers are paying very heavy interest on the extra money required. It is the desire of my Association that this advance should be a special one, entirely at the discretion of the board. With regard to the expenditure involved, it was with such expenditure in view that my Associaton has made no demands in the matter of gratuity. (4) Furniture Allowance.—The Association's experience is different from that' of the Department in the matter of furniture allowance. Erobably the Department has not been asked for more because soldiers know that the regulations limit the amount to £SO. (5) Soldiers' Dependents.—The Association is, glad to note that depsndents are considered in the matter of sustenance, and also that provision has been made for widowed mothers. (6) Control. —The Association wishes.. to make it clear that it recognises that the administration has been very successful and the confidence of the Association in the Department has been shown in many ways. However, a more careful perusal of the reasons for a central board of experts (apart from the question of Ministerial control) would shoW" that what the Association desired was a comprehensive reconstrucetion, policy, Tlw rutiu-aed selditr >*. tir-

pared to work out his destiny, but the country should as far as possible provide opportunity for him. My Association feels that little or no opportunity is offering for the great mass of men who cannot go on the land and who are not able to start in business. The Repatriation Department is not creating opportunities. It merely looks for employment, and however efficient the machinery for this may be, it will not makeopenings where none exist.