PROPOSED PENSIONS CUT

Evening Star, Issue 21078, 15 April 1932, Page 10

PROPOSED PENSIONS CUT

SOLDIER MEMBERS VIEWS APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT [From Ook Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, April 14. la no uncertain terms the Coalition Reform member for Invercargill (Mr J. Hargest) informed the Government in the House to-night that it could expect no support from him lor the proposals in the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill for a reduction in soldiers’ and old age pensions. “Although I would like always to give loyalty to my party,” said Mr Hargest, “ 1 find myself in an impossible position.” (Labour “ Hear, hears.”) “ Most of us realise that the Government must have money, and I can show fresh fields of taxation that could bo explored. In my opinion it is a downward step in a young country such as ours is to deprive the old and the helpless of their pensions. A reduction of Is 9d a week in the old age pension will mean a difference between some comforts and few. We should explore many other avenues before we deprive the old age pensioners of this little comfort in the declining days of their lives.”

Dealing with war pensions, Mr Hargest said he realised that soldiers’ pensions had not been touched, but there were proposals to deprive the widows and children of soldiers and the widowed mothers of a portion of their allowances, and to reduce the amount of the economic pension. Although he was himself entitled to a pension on account of war injury, he had never asked the Government for a penny piece, because he believed that he was able to look after himself, and he could therefore raise his voice on behalf of those who were not able-bodied as the outcome of war service. “ I feel,” he added, “ that I would be less than a man if I sat here and refrained from speaking on behalf of the soldiers who went overseas. No man who came back sound and fit wants anything, but he does expect something for those who are disabled and the dependents who were left when the supreme sacrifice was made.”

_ A motion that the member’s speaking time he extended was opposed by Mr D. M'Dougall (Mataura), to the accompaniment of protests from the Labour benches and cries of “ Shame.’ Continuing, Mr Hargest said he was appealing not to reason or to the business sense of the Government and Parliament, but to the moral sense, the sense of decency, and the sense of uprightness of members. Every returned soldier in the House recognised that the promises made hy the people of New Zealand in 1914-18 should at all costs be redeemed. Every day saw a diminution in the number of returned soldiers in the dominion, and they would feel that the country owed something to their dependents. “ I appeal to the Government to rescind its decision and remove the clause from the Bill and do something for soldiers’ dependents,” said Mr Hargest. “We expect nothing for ourselves, but we do expect the country to remember those who are infirm—those whose lives were shortened as a result of their war service and those with large families.” Fourteen years of peace had followed the sacrifices made in 1914-18, and it was hoped that another fourteen—indeed, forty—years would follow, ■ but the time would arrive eventually when the country would again call upon its men to bear arms in its defence. On that occasion would Parliament have to point to the promises of yesterday, and admit to the young man of the future that it had not been able to redeem them? Ho again appealed to the Government to deal kindly with those pensions, to rescind its decision even at that late hour, and redeem to the soldier and his dependents the promises made at the time when so much was asked of him.