OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 263, 30 July 1908, Page 6

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

There is rarely such unanimity of opinion in the Mouse of .Representatives as was exhibited in the debate of yesterday afternoon on the working of the old age pensions system. One of the Petitions Committees, reporting on the ease of a pioneer settlor who is said to have lost his right to a pension through the receipt of a comparatively small gift from a benevolent friend, recommended that the petitioner should be paid a pension equal to that to which, but for the l'atal gift, he would have been entitled. Mr. .Hauaie seized the opportunity to 'urge that persons " who have provided in a small measure for old ago " should not lose all claim to a pension, and he was supported in a .'remarkable- series of speeches condemnatory; of the property disqualification in tlic Pensions Act. .Member after member .declared that he had personal knowledge, of numerous hardships of tho kind : under notice. There is probably little; doubt that cases of hardship do occur under the provision that the annual pension of £26 shall be subject-to a deduction, of-ono pound for every ten pounds of tlienet capital value" of the pensioners accumulated property, which is tho actual capital value less fifty pounds. But the public, will .not readily believe that such cases are as numerous as would appear from yesterday's discussion. A porson who applies for a pension, and who is refused on what he considers unjust grounds, is. unlikely to let tho matter rest there. Tho Parliamentary member for his district is only tool glad to give the case his attention. This being .so, the public must receive with great caution every general statement about numerous hardships. I The provisions of . tho Ait are by no means illiberal. A qualified person may possess an income up to £34 a year, or property to the value of £50, ! without suffering any deduction from!the full' annual allowance of £26. lie may also possess, without injury to !his claim to receive the full pension, prpperty worth £150 be resides and which pro : duces ■no actual' 'ncome. In any event there seems to b*.' nothing iji the Act to prevent a pensioner who possesses, property from realising upon it and investing the proceeds, thus turning a disqualifying capital into an innocuous income. There is no question of the {soundness of Mr. Eauhe's contention that thrift should not be penalised. .But it must be remembered that the Old Age Pensions Act does not aim at the encouragement of thrift. On the contrary, jit is a dis'couragcment of thrift, and to ask its principle to assist thrift is-to ask it to dp something with which it has no concern. The very essonco of p. non-contri-butory pensions scheme is its non-recogni-tion of tho desirableness of jencouraging people to provide for their declining years. What is wanted by Jthe members who supported Mr. Paume can. only be, if not in fact, yet in effect, the raising of the figure at which incomc or property begins' to lower tho pension.' Any concession that will obviate all tlio hardships of tho kind under notice mlist be large enough to open tho door to a great many people not now receiving pensions, or, in other words, to increase vqry seriously the annual charge upon the Treasury. The apnual cost of the pensions has steadily increased from £127,319jin 1899 to £326,084 in 1907, and the nuiiibcr of pensioners- has mounted up to 1.1257. it is obvious - that the Government' must go very warily about any increase of this burden. We have no great hopes respecting the Government's " national annuities " proposals, but, assuming that a wise annuities scheme is devised, many years must elapse before it liegins even to check the growth of old age pensions expenditure. While, therefore, all possible sources of real hardship must be removed, it is very necessary that in removing them there shall be lelt no loopI hole for the abuse of tho system.