SHOULD IT PASS ?

Evening Post, Volume LIV, Issue 132, 1 December 1897, Page 4

SHOULD IT PASS ?

The House has at last put the Old Age Pensions Bill through the Committee stage. The general trend of the amendments introduced is undoubtedly in the rifcht direction, but the measure is still depldrably incomplete. Until it is printed with amendments it is doubtful whether hon. members will be in a position to realise what has been done and what left undone.' The grievous faults of the i original drafting, the unseemly hours to which the Premier prolonged the debates, and the muddle-headed way in which he marred valuable amendments with ambiguous tags of his own production, have combined to render the amended measure a most cumbersome and in many parts self - contradictory measure. Something however, has certainly been achieved in the way of discrimination, but more should still be done in this direction. The Bill savours too much of charitable aid, and is wholly wanting in encouragement to self-reliant efforts on the part of individual members of society. Apart from faults of principle, the structural errors are very marked, and would be inexcusable in a completed statute. The House had a try yesterday at solving the grotesque riddle in Clause 8 created by the Premier's little addition to an amendment of Mr. Taylor's in sub-section c, but was forced to give up the task. The Premier has promised that the Bill shall be recommitted if necessary, and, unless the House wishes an absolutely abortive measure to be sent up to the Council, there can be little doubt that the necessity will arise. But it is more than doubtful whether a recommittal even would suffice to make the present Bill satisfactory. Enough has certainly been done by the Committee during the past fortnight to show the Government the lines upon which it should draw up a feasible old-age pensions scheme, but we cannot believe that even the amended Bill should be considered as more than a valuable series of resolutions for guidance in the drafting of a new measure. The worst faults of Mr. Seddon's measure centre round the financial portions of the Bill, and these are beyond the power of pri-

1 ; vate members to amend. The Premier has, it is true, promised to bring down a few amendments by Governor's Message, but it remains to be seen whether he will draft them in such a way as to improve the Bill or not. Last night a somewhat animated discussion arose on the question of 'the "annual appropriation of the sums granted in pensions. The Premier fought hard for his original plan of one permanent appropriation under the Act, which would free Ministers from the necessity of having their methods of distribution discussed openty in Committee of Supply. As was to be expected, the Ministerial tiil wagged in sympathy with its leader j s - unconstit(itional declarations, and the motion for. annual appropriations wa.« lost by a., majority,, of two. It is another instance of the blows dealt at Parliamentary government by the Premier and his thoughtless majority, and should go a long way towards justifying the Council in rejecting the present Bill. The position of aliens also came under discussion in the course of last nighfs debate, and 'two amendments, with which we heartity agree, were added. Iv the original measure resident aliens sucb as Germans and Scandinavians could not reap the benefits of the Act unless they had bpen naturalised for 20 years, M As can easily be seen, this would have done a great injustice to some of our most valuable colonists, and the Premier did wisely in accepting the suggestion that the 20 years should be reduced to five bo far as naturalisation was concerned, the residential qualification of course being the same as for native-born British subjects. In respect of aliens also it is pleasing to find a prominent member of the Opposition like Mr. G. Hutchison gaining the introduction of words excluding Asiatics and Chinese from the benefits of the Bill. Such a course is in full accordance with the Democratic principles professed in the Australasian colonies. These alterations were to the good, but it is much to be regretted that the financial clauses are so intrinsically bad. We have always been strongly in favour of a real Old Age Pensions scheme, but we cannot see how Mr. Seddon's Bill even now can do any lasting work towards tha permanent realisation of legitimate hopes. We have little doubt that the Premier would reap much political advantage from the rejection of the Bill in the Upper House— more even, perhaps, than by its passage — but we should be willing to let him have it rather than that such a measure, calculated to bring the reform ~we desire into contempt, should be now inscribed upon the Statute Book to the disadvantage of the colony. Better delay that there may follow calm reflection, matured judgment, and a sound and sufficient measure such as we desire.