WAR PENSIONERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 118, 22 May 1939, Page 5

WAR PENSIONERS.

PROTESTS EXPECTED.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

IS THE POSITION FAIR ?

(By Telog-ai.h.—Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON", this dav.

Are returned soldier pensioners and their dependants going to be as well off under Social Security as they have been in the past, or are the compensations alhuved for their war losses to be swallowed up in the general fund is a question that is occupying the minds of many returned men. The question has been, and will continue to be, discussed, whenever returned soldiers meet, and there appears to be a probability that protests will be made from all over the country, says the ''Evening Post."'

If it is presumed that the disabled soldier has been pensioned in the same sense a* the worker who is no longer of use industrially because of advancing years, it must*be admitted that the returned soldier is the better otr, but if the soldier who received an injury 0.1 active service h*>.«s been paid compensation for his loss, should that compensation cease in whole or in part when Social Security payments begin? Returned soldiers argue that war pensions must he regarded as compensation as they are paid irrespective of the private income of the recipient. For instance, a man may be earning £1000 or more a year, but will still be paid 30/ a week if lie lost a leg in the war.

Payments Compared. Taking the standpoint that returned soldiers who lost limbs or were otherwise maimed have been paid compensation, many men claim that the Social Security Act will reduce that compensation. Jn the case of a man who was totally disabled in the war £2 a week has been paid for the disability, if the man is married tie receives £1 a week for his wife, and may receive £1 10/ as an economic pension, £4 10/ in all. On the other hand, the man of <>0 who did nothing in the war may receive £1 10/ as age benefit and a similar sum for his wife if she is also tiO rears of age. and the couple may have an income of £1 a week, a total of £4 in all. Putting the best possible construction on this, returned soldiers say, the disabled man's wife is being paid io/ a week less than the woman, drawing an age benefit, but if the £2 pension is l>eing paid as compensation the returned soldier over 60 is 30/ short because of the 10/ plus the £1 the other man is allowed to earn. In other words the disabled man has ln's compensation reduced from £2 to 10/ a week; a poor return for going through the best years of his life without limbs, or eyes, or hopelessly crippled in some other way.

Widowed Mothers. Returned soldiers express the opinion that the Social Security Act also reacts detrimentally to war widows and widowed mothers of deceased soldiers. In the ease ol a widow 50 per cent dependent on a son who was killed in the war, 1.3/ a week liar, been paid as pension, and the old-age pension was paid in addition, making £1 17/0 in all. From April 1 other old age pensioners have been paid an additional 7/li per week, but widows drawing war pensions have had no increase. If others are entitled to an Increase, and to have £1 a week other income as well, are not widows who lost their sons over twenty years ago afeo entitled to something more, is the question a.sked.

The following case lias been stated by one returned soldier:—A mother who was assisted by her son lost that son in the war, and has been receiving 15/ as war pension and 22/0 old age pension, or £1 17/0 a week. Another mother whose son did not go to the war, but who assisted her and also provided her with a home, now receives £1 10/ a week. Obviously, said this returned soldier, the mother who lost her son in France is much worse, on" than the other woman who has a home rent free and gets a little assistance from her son.

The Social Security provisions had definitely put returned soldiers and their dependents in a relatively worse position than they occupied previously, another returned soldier stated. If pensions for war disabilities were regarded

as compensation—and compensation was paid for injuries received in industry —the returned soldier over sixty should receive full age benefit and the light to earn £1 a week, but if that were done the cost of pensions and age benefits would increase to such an extent that the age benefit would have to be reduced, it was simply a case of the returned soldier being reduced in ratio so that those combined not injured in war could be given more. Kcturned soldiers in general bad never been satisfied that their disabled comrades had been fully compensated, and instead of the position being improved the ratio had been altered to tlie detriment of the disabled man who was left to meet increasing costs on his former income.