War pensions

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32860, 8 March 1972, Page 16

War pensions

Sir, —In your editorial of February 8 you refer to unemployment benefit of $3l a week for a married man. In comparison, I would like to draw your attention to the married war veteran’s pension, also $3l a week, subject to a means test, also documented proof of actual engagement with the enemy in battle areas. Universal superannuitants (married) receive the same payment as above regardless of any other income. Is the war veteran sufficiently rewarded? — Yours, etc., 2/N.Z.E.F. February 11, 1972. [Mr Thomson replies for the Minister in charge of War Pensions (Mr McCready): "The qualifications for the war veterans allowance vary considerably from those for unemploymertt benefits and superannuation benefit. To qualify for an unemployment benefit an applicant must be unemployed, be willing to undertake suitable work, and take reasonable steps to obtain suitable work. Furthermore, if any applicant has become voluntarily unemployed or has lost his employment through misconduct or fails without good reason to accept work offered, the benefit may be withheld. Superannuation benefits are payable at the same maximum rates as other social security benefits, but are not payable until the age of 65, and in the case of married persons both husband and wife must have attained this qualifying age before payment could be made at $3l a week. On the other hand, war veterans allowance may be granted at any age provided the applicant is unfit for permanent employment and is qualified on service grounds. The maximum basic rate of this allowance is the same as for social security benefits, but an additional age supplement of up to $7B a year is payable to veterans who have attained 65 years. If a veteran and his wife have both reached 65 the supplement is payable at up to $156 a year.”]

Payment of benefits Sir, —Mr Adams-Schneider is not strictly accurate when he states that “the due payment date” of increases to which age, widow, invalid and miner beneficiaries are ; entitled, is March 7. These people, on being granted a benefit, have a payment date on the basis of four weeks pay after one week from date of grant; that is, always three weeks. in advance. Their pay day which included payment for February 16 to February 29 was February 8. On March 7 they are of course getting the amount of 14 days increase or 14 days (February 16 to 29; paid for on February 8, but to be strictly accurate March 7 is not “the due payment date” for such increase. March 14 for universal superannuation is quite accurate because, in the first place, unlike age benefit, it is not paid until four weeks have elapsed.—Yours, etc., ’ A. B. CEDARIAN.

February 22, 1372. [The Minister of Social Security (Mr Adams-Schnei-der), replies: “Your corresdent’s understanding of the payment of age, widow, invalid, and miner benefits is not correct. These benefits are paid one week before the end of the four-weekly pay period covered by each instalment. Accordingly, the instalment of benefit which was due on February 8, 1972, covered payment of benefit for the four-weekly period, January 19, 1972; to February 15, 1972. The recent increase in benefits was effective from February 16, 1972, and these increases will be payable on March 7, 1972, which is also the due date of payment for the next fourweekly period, February 16, 1972. to March 14, 1972."] “Cold” Christchurch

Sir, — Quite apart from what is available to “Squarites” in the suburbs, however, a few people are now supporting the idea of a building for these people. Rather than just "give" this to them, would it not be better if we helped them to help themselves in implementing the creation of such a place? Almost certainly, the “Squarites” would obtain a real sense of achievement — something many of them may never have experienced before — if they pitched in and helped raise funds to provide something that they need. — Yours, etc., B. USEFUL. March 6, 1972.

Sir, —“Observer” would be well occupied if he tried to discover the reason why all residents of Christchurch are not in the Cathedral Squarites gang. Maybe they: like having a purpose in life i other than being rude to their i fellow-men; perhaps they like ; to take a bath regularly, to < make some contribution to : the society in which they ' live. This is not expensive ; to do, to give human com- L panionship to a lonely ' Serson, to share a burden too , eavy for an elderly person ; or a young person to carry. , These are simple needs in every part of living, rich and , poor. The poor are often the : richest because they have; that humble value of enjoy-' ing companionship With ■ those around them.

“Observer” should try his own methods, make them work for him, show this mediocre society how much better his ideas can be. He will be another Pied Piper of Hamelin, his following should be so great. The churches will empty, so will Cathedral Square; all the grouches will disappear and a wonderful Utopia will begin.—Yours, etc., PRACTISING, NOT GRUMPING. March 6, 1972.

Sir, —“Observer” seems to have failed to see that I was merely pointing out that there is something to offer young people in the suburbs; which is contrary to the view of Mr S. A. Brown. If we forget all about people who are worse off than ourselves, there is still room for a little exertion from the “Squarites” to see just what—to quote “Observer”—“austere middle-

class morality and quaint nineteenth century standards” have to offer. Quite

evidently. “Observer” has not observed and therefore has no idea of the new and modem programmes that the majority of these organisations can offer. This includes their positive approach to youth and broad-minded outlook on society today and in the future. —Yours, etc., RED CROSS YOUTH AND GIRL GUIDE LEADER. March 6, 1972. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”]