CONSERVE OR SPEND?

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1921, Page 2

CONSERVE OR SPEND?

USE or WAR RELIEF FUKDS. TARANAKI POLICY CRITICISED. At Tuesday’s meeting of the Advisory Board of the War Relief Societies, at Wellington, Mr. R. J. F. Aldrich (one of the delegatee and secretary of the Wellington Returned Soldiers’ Association) expressed disapproval of the policy pursued by the Taranaki Returned Soldiers’ Association in the administration of its funds. His principal complaint was that the funds were not being conserved so that assistance should still be available for men who might break down, years hence.

Mr. W. Power (Taranaki delegate) spoke in defence of the Taranaki policy. He eaid Mr. Aldrich had argued that funds should be conserved for men who broke down within the next twenty years. By that time most returned sol- # diers would be “broken down”; that was to say, they would be old men. He believed that war service shortened life by about ten years. The basis of the Taranaki scheme had been a cash grant, the maximum grant being £<2so. Soldiers suffering irreducible permanent disability 40 per cent, or over” were admitted, and at a time when it looked as though there was 'a fair amount of funds in hand, the scheme was extended to come down as low as 20 per cent. The scheme was adopted with a view to winding up the funds. Funds had never been placed in the hands of the societies to be hoarded up for an indefinite period. It had been intended that they should be spent. Jf it were not all spent on sick and wounded soldiers it meant that they would be sery seriously depleted by administration expenses, which had got out °f proportion. He agreed with Mr. Aldrich that there should be no discrimination between the soldiers' in the different parts. Taranaki iiij the early days of war funds had been in favor of a Dominion scheme, but unfortunately a Dominion scheme could not be brought into operation, and as it was the smaller associations that suffered, they had got down to the next best thing, viz., a provincial scheme. Taranaki claimed that it had done its best. Whs it not better to spend the money on the soldiers than on an army of paid officials ?

Mr. V. J. Larner (Auckland) said that Auckland had had to help a number of Taranaki men, resident in the northern city, and Taranaki had declined the applications when they had been sent on. Mr. Larner-quoted a few z 4nstances. He also read the following communications received by Auckland from Taranaki, under date June 7, 1921,: —“The policy of this association has been previously explained to you, but I . would again state that the operations of this association are now confined entirely, to the assistance of seriously permanently disabled soldiers in respect to which applications closed on October 20, 1920. As there is every indication that the applications in hand will probably absorb the remaining funds, the executive committee have decided that no further applications. will be considered until all cases in hand as at October 20, 1920, have been finalised.” Mr. Larner safid that he fiid not wish to judge Taranaki, but he thought that possibly Taranaki had not, looked quite far enough ahead, and had perhaps distributed the funds in some directions too. liberally. Perhaps Taranaki had not allowed itself quite enough to meet such cases as he had mentioned. Auckland would like to know whether it was any use referring Taranaki cases to the Taranaki Association.

‘ Mr. Aklrich: .You can save a lot of telegrams declining. Mr. Power sakj, in reply to Mr. Larner, that Taranaki had opened up a late application list,-and in the case of any of the applicants who disclosed irreducible permanent disability of 40 per cent, or oyer, the association would consider making a grant. The association had gone so far as to give these late applicants preference to other applicants whose disability was below 40 per cent.