PARLIAMENT.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 98, 22 October 1898, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Yesterday's Sitting.

THIKD READINGS. The M'Lean Motor Car Bill and the Wellington City Reclamation and Public Baths Bill were x*ead a third time. OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. Previous to the continuation of the adjourned debate the Hon. Mr. M'Lean asked the Speaker's ruling as to whether the Bill was a Money Bill. The Speaker said it was practically the same measure as the Old Age Pensious Bill of last year, and came strictly under May's definition of a Money Bill, as ruled last session. The Council would therefore not have the power to amend it. The Hon. Mr.- MacGregor then resumed the second reading debate, and stated that he doubted the correctness of the Speaker's ruling upon the point of constitutional law.' Some hon. members seemed to find the Bill an improvement on the measure introduced last year, bub there was no reason to doubt the* accuracy of the Minister's statement that the two measures were virtually the same. The Council had thought fit to lay the last Bill aside, but there did not 6eem much prospect of a similar course being adopted this year. The preamble of the. Bill was quite inconsistent with the* provisions of the measure. Reference was then made to the work of the Rothschild Committee aud the schemes suggested in other countries. In this colony, although the Legislature was on the point of legislating on the subject, less real attention had been paid to it than in countries that had not dared yet to act. The proper course would have been to set up a Commission to enquire exhaustively into the matter before auy Bill was passed. The Council should treat the Bill as it treated the measure of last session, and he would therefore move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading the substitution of the following words: — "That the Bill be laid aside for these reasons :— (1) That the Bill now before the Council, although amended to a certain extent \a detail, is in principle the same as the one laid aside by the Council las>t session, and is open to the objections then taken ; (2) that the country has not yet Had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the scope and operation of the Bill ; (3) that the financial provision on which it is based is unsatisfactory; (4) that no carefully prepared estimates or actuarial calculations have been submitted to Parliament or the country, which has had no opportunity of understanding the obligations which the Bill imposes upon it ; (5) that the so-called pension is practically a form of additional relief open to the risk of great injustice and uncertainty in administration ; (6) that the Bill is calculated to discourage thrift and self --respect, and is in no sense of the word a pension Bill." He (Mr. MacGregor) would not even commit himself to the approval of old age pensions until he had seen the principle embodied in some concrete form. It was quite conceivable that the problem was beyond rational solution. He would not, however, say it was too much for human sagacity and sympathy, but until a reasonable scheme were produced he must suspend judgment. Because they could not solve the problem, were legislators justified in placing on the Statute-book a Bill that was no solution? It was generally admitted that our charitable aid system, with its pauperising outdoor relief, was about the worst system established since the Poor Law Reform of the Old Country in 1834, and yet this Bill extended that relief without safeguards. It was only a measure of pauperisation, and its discriminations could not convert charitable doles into peusious. If the Bill were to be put on the Statute-book it should be put there with the intention of being retained, aud it was no credit to its provisions that its operations we-d in a sense limited to three years. The growth of Friendly Societies was a standing proof of what could be done by the savings of the working classes. Was there any essential difference between provision agaiust sickness aud old age i' Saving and thrift were not so much nuutters of circumstances or wages as of character. The most distressing feature of the discussions upon this measure was the tendency to-discoarage thrift. Socialists might logically consider it a social crime, and throw all burdens on the State, but most men were not prepared to go that length. We should encourage independence and self-reliance in our people, aud not crush out their sense of responsibility. The question was not so much one of £ s. d. as of character, and a pension that was only outdoor relief must tend to demoralisation. Mr. MacGregor then quoted authorities to show the evil results of such a scheme as that proposed by the Government. One of the most extraordinary provisions of the Bill was contained in clause 43, which made special rules for the case of pensioners in receipt of charitable aid. This clause clearly exposed the nature of the measure the Council was called upon to discuss. It was really almost useless to attempt to debate the Bill thoroughl}', for it was practically a foregoue conclusion that this wretched Bill was to be placed upon the Statute - book to act as a festering sore in the body politic. The very principle of old age pensions was absent from the measure, aud no furture tinkering could really amend it. It would ultimately have to be done away with, and the new structure, if there were one, erected de iwvo. The Bill was founded upon the theory of taking from those that have in order to give to those that have not. This was injustice committed under the authority of the State. It was not the proper function of taxation to re-distribute property, but only to provide for the public service. The Pensions Bill was the most far-reaching measure of State Socialism ever attempted in any country. We might equalise material conditions for a time in this way, but we should not make men by such legislation. The Hon. Mr. M'Lean said the country was entering upon a serious financial question that should have been put to it fairly. Theoretical questions could be discussed with a light heart, but it was very diifere- 1 with practical ones. It was all very well to say the people had decided in favour of old age pensions, but had they accepted this particular Bill ? The Hon. Mr. Jennings considered the arguments advanced by the Hon. Mr. MacGregor sucli trite ones as were always brought forward against reforms. As to the financial basis of the Bill, he would recommend that a heavier tax than now existed should be put upon absentee landlords. Why should such objections be made to the recipients? There were many old people who had brought up their families well after a hard struggle, and surely they were entitled to such a small dole. The Minister for Education was struck by the vaguenens with which the Bill had been traversed. The whole question was one of the faith that was in us, it was not a matter of argument. If a man believed th« Bill endeavoured to carry out a good principle it did not matter to him what anyone else wrote or said about the abstract problem. The opponents of the Bill talked of sympathy, but sympathy was no use unless it was practical. The Bill was intended for those among whom thrift was unknown. Ordinary people with luck and thrift could probably lay by for their old age, but there were some who through misfortune or for other reasons, scarcely to be called faults of their own, could not do so. It was for those that the Bill was intended, and it did not attack thrift in any way. No one could live to 05 without contributing to the revenue, and so when a man reached that aue he might well be considered an honorary member of the firm, and entitled to a pension. As to increased taxation, a little more 'would not

drive awjy rich men who wished to stay here, and even if they left, they could not take away the bind, which was really the wealth of the country. The Bill differed from charitable aid, since it tried to differentiate pensioners from recipients of aid, making the former those only who lmve virtually rendered services to the colony. On division the amendment was lost by 21 to 13. The votiui? was as follows : — For the Bill (21).— Eicliardson, Bolt, M'Cullough, Montgomery, Harris, Peacock, Barnicoat, W. Walker, W. Smith, Arkwright, Kevr, T. Kelly, lligg, Jones, Jeukinson, Twomey, L. Smith, Feldwick, Reeves, j?inkerton, and Jennings. ■ Against (13). — L.Walker, Baillie, Bouar, Stewart, Rwauson, Shrimski, MaoGregoi", Bowen, Orinond, Oliver, Johnston, Grace, and M'Lean. Pairs.— For —W. Kelly, Taiaroa, and Kenny. Against — Morris, "Williams, and Stevens. The second reading of the Bill was then agreed to. KAUBI GUM. The Kauri Gum Bill was partly considered in Committee. The Council adjourned at 9.65 p.m.