THE OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 16, 19 July 1905, Page 4

THE OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.

The House of Representatives put the pid-age Pensions Bill through its third reading! last night by the substantial majority of 53 votes to 10, but the minority would certainly have been much larger if all those who shared its views had had the courage to vote accordingly. Mr. Massey, who had opposed the Bill at every previous stage, was not among thoso who shirked the responsibility of a hostile vote, and in his speech last night he denounced) it as "the most transparent electioneering dodge ever submitted to the country."-' Mr. Ell retorted that the palm in this respert was really due to the action of the Leader of the Opposition in offering to Crown tenants the freehold of their land, and it is not for us to decide between the two. But though electioneering motives undoubtedly played large part in the benevolence both of the Premier and of the majority that supported him, it is equally certain th^t the rejection of the measure would havo given it still more power at the general election, and so have played still more effectively into the Premier's hands; and Mr. Massey is fully entitled to that consolation in his failure to' defeat the Bill. But while we commend his straightforward and! fearless opposition," we cannot see that even he can fairly escape the charge of inconsistency which the Premier brought against him. How can denunciation oT the Bill as beyond the country's present resources be reconciled with the advocacy of a univeiv sal scheme for immediate adoption? Mr. Taylor'6 criticism has proved more effective, for, after inducing the House to reject that member's motion that the value of an applicant's home should not be included in the computation of his property for the purposes of the Act, the Premier has met the objection rather more than half way. An exemption of £150 is to be allowed on this account, so that only the sui'plus value of a man's home above that amount will count towards the £260 worth of property which will disqualify him from a pension. The arrangement is utterly illogical, and still penalises the thrifty man and benefits the -waster, but the amendment has at least the advantage of reducing the scope of the injustice, and the only possible objection to adopting it in this restricted form or in the wider application urged by Mr. Taylor is a purely financial one. In this and other minor features the Bill has been decidedly improved in Committee, and the next time that the House has to deal with, the question wo hope that no electioneering issue will be raised, and that the three radical defects of the system will be cured by providing more adequate tests of merit, a contributory scheme that will promote thrift instead of discouraging it, and a permanent endowment for the whole system.