PENSIONS DISCUSSED

Grey River Argus, 24 July 1923, Page 2

PENSIONS DISCUSSED

Labour Demands Increases Speaking in the House of Representatives on Mr W. E. Parry’s motion in favour of providing pensions for the blind end invalided, and also in favour of increasing the old age, miners, and widows’ pensions, Mr 11. E. Holland, M.P., leader of the Labour Party, said:— f ‘l would point out that we alwhys find the question raised when any proposal of this kind comes forward, that we cannot get the money to finance it, that it would cost too much. But should a war break to-morrow, should some conflict, arise in some distant part of the world over a question of vested interests, such as oil, iron, or gold, and should Britain becopie involved in that war, and ourselves involved through Britain, the Primo Minister will not say “wc cannot find money for war purposes.” He will at once tell us he can easily find the money. He cannot find it for the purpose of providing a standard of comfort and decency for the aged people, the blind, the maimed, the widows, and the orphans. The vast majority of the aged people have given the very best years of their lives to making this country a fit place for those who followed them to live in, and the Dominion owes it to them to give them a standard of living in their declining years that will enable them to end their days in comfort. Then there is the

MINERS’ PHTHISIS VICTIM, the victim of the most deadly industrial disease the world knows, who sacrifices his life winning gold. When he has become a victim of the disease tho chances are that he will not live more than five years. He cannot get a pension until the doctor has declared that he is totally incapacitated from work. So long as he is capable of going to work at all he is not entitled to the pension, and when he gets it—at a time when he needs medical care, when he needs nursing, when ho needs home comforts, as he never needed them before—if he is a single man we give him £1 5s a week, and if he is a married man, we give him £1 15s. a week on which to keep himself and his family. A dying man gets £1 15s. to keep himself, his wife and children. Most of the men who die of this disease die while they are comparatively young men. There cannot, possibly be an argument against providing tho victim of an occupational disease with what would be the equivalent of the full wages he would earn while he was able to work. I pointed out before, Sir, that we have nearly £5,000,000 a year in our Budget as interest to the war lenders. These pensions are not going to cost anything like £5,000,000 a year. This country is rich enough and is great enough to make provision for the whole of the invalided and the aged who have claims against the commuti ity. It is a reflection on New Zealand t» say that the country could not raise the money to pay these pensions. Imagine anyone objecting to 25/- a week to make provision for our AGED MEN AND WOMEN. Imagine anyone saying “If we arc go-

ing to put an extra 10/- per week on to these pensions, we are doing something that will drag New Zealand in the direction of bankruptcy.” That is a slander against the country itself. I endorse all that has been said with regard to the persistence of the honourable member for Auckland Central respecting this matter. Long before he came into the House, a practical miner himself, he carried on this work on behalf of those who needed assistance. He has constantly advocated pensions for the blind. Can there be a greater reflection on the people in a country like this than that we make no provision whatever for the man who becomes industrially blinded—there is no provision beyond the workers’ compensation, which is totally inadequate. The person born blind we make no provision for. The Australian Federal Government has an invalidity pension of 15/per week, which applies to the blind. On top of that the State of Queensland adds a very substantial amount. The two pensions together make it possible for the blind person to live comfortably. But here in this country—a country that is capable of far greater productive effort than a drought visited State like Queensland could possibly be, and with a larger population than Queensland — we make no provision at all for people who are born blind other than they can get through charitable aid. Travel down on the boat from here to Lyttelton, and occasionally yon will see the blind man playing his accordeon or endeavouring to sing, and his box going round for the purpose of

COLLECTING A FEW PENNIES. Go out on the street and you will find the blind man grinding an organ and sending round a collection box. It is a reflection on our common humanity; it is a reflection on our civilisation. We certainly make some provision for our blinded soldiers, otherwise our Statute Book is devoid’of legislation making provision for the blind. Then take the case of widows; a young woman is left, say, with a family of three. If the children are under the age of 14 years we give her 7/6 a week for herself and 7/6 a week for each child. If she has three children wc give her 30/- a week on which to keep herself and her children. Who is there among the members of this House who will say that it is possible for a woman, who is left widowed, to keep a roof over her head, keep her children with her, and give them the benefit of her mother love and care on that amount. If she goes out to work and earns money which brings her earning above her

pension, then she has her pension reduced. If she goes out to work she must pay some other women to look af ter her children. Surely the State has a duty to the widow and her orphaned children. We have heard it said over and over again from the Government benches that the best immigrants are those born in New Zealand, and still we are not making adequate provision for ORPHANED CHILDREN. Then, again, there arc the anomalies which the Hon. Minister of Pensions has mentioned. The leader of the Opposition says that his amendment covers soldiers’ pensions, and of course that is correct. At the present time the soldiers’ pension is away and above the ordinary pension, and we are quite willing to increase the soldiers’ pension where it is necessary. Mr Wilford: There is also the case of the man who has been signed off the pension list and then got ill again and ought to go back on the list. Mr Holland: Yes, I know, but the honourable gentleman probably knows that if a man is on the soldiers’ pension and he signs off the pension list, and his disability comes back upon him, he is not debarred from getting the pension again. I have handled cases of that kind. As a matter of fact a. railway-worker from the Reefton district went to work at Petone. He carried a bullet inside of him; his pension w: s stopped and I carried the case to the then Minister of Defence and got in writing a promise that if the disability returned the man would be entitled to claim the pension again. The disabilitv did return and to-day

he is receiving the pension. But there is a great deal that needs to be remedied, with respect to the administration of the SOLDIERS’ PENSION SYSTEM. Here is a case, Mr Speaker, that il lustrates what 1 mean. A man came back from the war suffering from either gas or shell shock— I am not quite sure which. He took to drink as a result of the sufferings he was enduring owing to his war service. In due

time he committed suicide while under the influence of drink. When application was made by the widow, who has four little children, for the soldier’s pension, it was held that his death was not due to his war service, and the pension was refused. That seems to me to be an absurdity. If a man

takes to drink rs a result of shellshock or through being gassed at the war, that is certainly due to his war service, and if he takes his own life while under the influence of drink, his death is likewise due to his war service, and his widow ought to be able to claim the pension. In any case, uo matter what the cause of death, the widow and orphans should have some claim upon the State, because, whether it is a soldier’s widow and orphans, or an ordinary citizen's widow and orphans, it costs just as much to keep them—it takes just as much to keep one child as it does the other. The case made by the member for Auckland

Central with regard to these pensions is unanswerable, and I am sorry for the Liberals who have decided to vote with the Government on this occasion. But tho division will put both the old parties into the Reform camp once again. The fact will remain that the Liberals will be voting confidence in the Government, and they will also be voting against a specific, motion in favour of providing adequate relief for the invalided and the blind, the aged, the victims of miners’ phthisis, and the widows and orphans of this country who arc entitled to demand pensions.