WAR VETERANS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 87, 9 October 1935, Page 16

WAR VETERANS

"BURNT-OUT" MEN

PEWON PAYMENTS

ARE THEY ADEQUATE ?

BILL BEFORE HOUSE

While the provisions of the War Veterans Bill, providing for pensions for "burnt-out" returned sol- • diers,were generally welcomed when the "measure came before the House \. of Representatives last night for second reading, there was some criticism from the Opposition, speakers <on the ground that the Bill was not | generous enough. All speakers were ;in agreement that the Bill was a step v in the right direction; the only point lof difference was the length of the ( step. The Bill was read a second < time. ■! « ■ Moving the second reading, the Mm:- --: ister of Defence (the Hon. J..G. Cobbe) ' v said the' Bill afforded him greater pleasure than any other Bill, ..with which ■■■ he had- been associated. He regarded the provisions of {he Bill as an acknowledgment of the deep debt that New Zealand owed to the men who had fought in the Great War. The object was to relieve those men who, although 'suffering from the effects of their war- service, ■ were unable to satisfy the War Pensions Board 'or the War Pensions Appeal Board that their disability was due to that 'service. It was realised that there' • were many ex-servicemen who were only now beginning to feel the effects of the great strain which had-been imposed upon them. The Bill would apply to men who had served with other branches of the British forces ■•■. and also to ex-members' of the South African contingents. When the Bill was in Committee he •; proposed to move an amendment to provide that . occasional absences from New Zealand ; should not bar a man... from receiving ; the pension, provided the periods of absence did not exceed six months in ;■ the aggregate. ■ \ There were now hundreds of returned men who were breaking down, for the four years ; they had spent at'the Front had imposed a greater strain on them than twenty years of civil life would have done. Canada had recently brought in legislation to provide for the* so-called ; "burnt-out" men, and New Zealand would have done so earlier had the financial' position of the country war- ■ ranted it. However, New Zealand was a good second, and it was pleasing to note that Canada and New Zealand .;,. were the only twe countries that had legislated in that direction. It was •satisfactory to know that one of the . first acts the Government had taken ■on the return of prosperity/was to pay the debt it owed to men who had fought overseas.: A BIG PRINCIPLE. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. M. J. Savage) congratulated the Minister on bringing down the Bill. It was nearly seventeen years since the men.^returned from the Front, and there .had been numerous arguments

about the question of attributability. The member for Grey Lynn (Mr. J. A. Lee) had introduced a Bill to provide for pensions for those men. There was a big principle involved in the Bill, a principle that should be put into every household where people were unable to lock after themselves. Mr. T. Atmore (Independent, Nelson): Irrespective of the origin of the injury. Mr. Savage agreed. "'He was glad that it was realised at last that they should be their brothers' keepers. He only hoped that the legislation would not be surrounded by regulations which would mean that only one man in a thousand would be entitled to the pension. Mr. Cobbe: We are anxious that every man'who deserves a pension shduld get it. The Leader of the Opposition said that the fact that a man had broken down should be sufficient to prove his claim, for a pension. He was just a little bit afraid of regulations. He did not want to discount the Minister's effort in any way. The Bill was a step in the right direction and the principle that -was being established was unanswerable. The only complaint he would make was that the Bill did not apply, to the soldier in industry who happened to be in the same position. .It was very difficult for him to distinguish' between the . two. The Minister was to be congratulated on making a start with the soldier—no one had a better claim—but he did not think they would solve the problem until they had a measure-of a general nature to cover everyone. NOT BEYOND POVERTY. Mr. Savage said that the provisions of the Bill were not going to place the returned soldier out of the reach of poverty. A man, his wife, and one child would receive £2 a week, and that seemed to be cutting it pretty fine. ; Mr. Atmore: What about the rent?\ Mr. Savage: Yes, a good deal will go in rent.. Mr. Cobbe: It is better than nothing. Mr*, Savage: Yes, the returned soldier has been so used to getting nothing from the present Government that he will naturally accept this- as better than he has been getting. Remarking that he had no power to move amendments «to increase the scale of payments, Mr. Savage said that he could only express the. hope that at the earliest possible moment a full living would be provided for the returned man. , '.■:- ~ Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Government, Riccarton) congratulated the Government on the measure. The difficulty of these men had been to prove .to the Appeal Board that they had any physical disability.; He wondered whether it had not been more costly to keep the board than to give the men what they had been asking for. The maximum allowance was £143,- which vhe thought was a very fair maximum. The residential qualification would also liberalise the Act considerably..'-'. SEPARATED ' .Mr. W. J. .Jordan XLabour,.-Manu-kau) said, "Thank you" .to the Government, the Minister, -and the Department for ,the small measure, of-re-lief. ■ It. was,-; however, unreasonable to^say "that a-'inan- had to be permanently unemployable. Not all returned men had cracked up; but.others were cracking up, and in these days of intense competition it was ..useless for a man 75 per cent, fit to look for work. It was this class of men, who were in. the process of cracking up, that-had to be considered. He'made a-plea.for consideration of the wife and ..family who were, not living with the husband, in view of the fact that

the BiU provided that husband and wife had to live together.

Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) described the Bill as one of the most liberal measures ever brought before the House. It was not perfect, but he believed that '.he Minister had gone as far as he was able to do, and the Government deserved congratulations. The measure was an expression of gratitude to those men who had served the country. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): Electioneering. Mr. Wright said he was not concerned, with that; he was ready to accept anything that would benefit anyone who deserved it He mentioned the difficulty of determining whether a man was permanently unemployable There was always a doubt about this and he hoped that the board would be liberal in its administration of the measure, and give the returned men the benefit of the doubt. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Labour Auckland East) said that a grave injustice might be done through the application of the clause stipulating that the pensioner and his wife had to be living together. In cases of separation consideration of the family's welfare was essential. In the case of old a«e pensions, a married couple living apart under a separation order were treated as being single. Mr H. G. Dickie (Government, Patea) said that the Bill would meet with general approval. It was more liberal than the Canadian measure. The returned men had been asking for the measure for some time, and it was opportune that something should be done for them. OF LITTLE SERVICE. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said that the soldier had to prove as much under the Bill as he would have to prove to get a pension. The Minister of Defence: Nonsense Mr. Parry suggested that the onus should be thrown on the board of proving that the soldier was not suffering If the Bill went through as it was, it would be of little service to the soldiers. Mr. A. E. Ansell (Government, Chalmers) said there was no provision in the Bill for widows whose husbands had been unable to prove war attributability. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) also urged that the operation of the ;Bill should not be restricted to those who had come into contact with'the enemy. Many returned soldiers wouia benefit from the Bill, but there were many ottiers who would receive no benefit /because of the anomalies. , Mr. J. Harges't (Government, Invercargill) said that it was agreed that progress had to be made slowly, and the Bill was a step in. the right direction.. The measure would reach a type of man who had never been reached before. QUESTION OF BEHAVIOUR. Mr. W. E.,Barnard (Labour, Napier) said there were several points of criticism in the Bill, acceptable though it would be to the country. The stipulation that a pensioner was required to have engaged in actual engagement with,the enemy was liable to certain anomalies, and there would also be some difficulty in determining whether a man was permanently unemployable. Touching on the conduct clause, Mr. Barnard asked whether this referred to conduct while on active service, and received an assurance from the Minister that it did not.

Mr. Barnard criticised the limit placed oni the amount a pensioner could earn .without penalising his pension. '* Mr. A. M.' Samuel (Independent, Thames) said he regarded the Bill

above party, and he welcomed it as a step in the right direction. He did not intend to make capital out of the shortcomings of the measure, which had been approved by the New Zea-land-Returned Soldiers' Association. He was convinced that as far as unemployables were concerned they would be leniently dealt with by the board proposed to be set up. • AN INSTALMENT. Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) said he was of the opinion that the Minister would like to be far more liberal with returned soldiers than he was permitted to be. The "burnt-out" soldier was entitled to as much as the man who was wounded." The Bill would be accepted as an instalment. The Minister of Employment (the Hon. S. G. Smith) said that the Bill would give relief in many cases where no relief was given today. |

Mr. C. H. Chapman (Labour, Wellington ' North) said all would agree with the principle of the Bill,,but he was afraid that the conditions were such that they would almost make it impossible for an applicant to be successful. The Bill was read a second time.