INVALID PENSIONS

Grey River Argus, 23 August 1934, Page 2

INVALID PENSIONS

MR O’BRIEN’S BILL Accorded Second Reading MR. O’BRIEN’S STRONG PLEA FOR INVALIDS. (Our Parliamentary Reporter.) The Invalid Pensions Bill, introed by Mr. J. O’Brien, M.P., was accorded a second reading by the House of Representatives last Thursday evening, and, although Mr. O’Brien was suffering severely from a severe cold, he was brought from his home to move the second reading. Under these conditions some members considered his speech would have lacked its usual forcefulness, but Westland’s member put up one of the strongest pleas for invalids yet heard in the House. It was remarkable that no member offered much opposition to the Bill, but a few considered the provisions made for invalids in the Bill were on too liberal a scale. The Bill was warmly supported by several Labour members. The only two Government members to speak were Mr. Clinkard (Rotorua), and the Minister of Pensions (Hon. J. G. Cobbe). Both of these gentlemen considered the cost of invalid pensions would be too great for the State to bear at the present time, but it was pointed out by other Labour speakers that the arguments used from the Government benches were the same as was used against the Old Age Pensions and Widows Pensions when these measures were before the House. Herewith a verbatim report of Mm O’Brien’s speech: “Mr. O’Brien (Westland): Sir, the discussion upon the motion for leave to introduce this Bill showed very definitely the want of some measure of the kind in the social legislation of New Zealand. For many years the people of the Dominion have endeavoured in some way or other to provide for invalids, but have failed. But during the discussion on the first stage of this Bill many members spoke in its favour. We discovered, indeed, that there was no opposition whatever. Even the Minister of Pensions went sc far as to say that, although he would not make any promise, still, if things went on improving, he would probably bring down a Bill of this description either next year or the year after next. Mr. Cobbe; I said the matter’ would be considered.

A SOCIAL DUTY. Mr. O’Brien: I said that the lion, gentleman did not make any promise. T suggest to the hon. gentleman that there is no nation on the face of the earth that does not endeavour to provide in some way for the sick and invalids. It is the concern of every civilised nation, and many of the savage tribes. In fact, we find savage tribes looking after their invalids fa.’ better than some of the more advanced peoples. While this Bill has been before the House it has been pointed on' that it would cost a certain amount of money. I have tried, and am still Irving, to prove to the House and the Government that the cost would be merely incidental, because when the Department has been computing the cost it has failed to take into considera lion the number of pensions we have now that would be paid Io invalids. The Soldiers’ pension is definitely an invalids’ pensions. If we had invalids’ pensions, those provisions would more or less go by the board. The old-age pension is certainly an invalids’ pension, and so are the pensions for the blind. Miner’s phthisis pensions are invalid pensions, and if we go through the whole category of looking after our sick and. needy we find that the Government subscribes money at almost every stage for the sick and needy. Hospital subsidies are really grants to invalids, and if you consider the hospital and charitable ail granted by the hospital boards it will be found that the greater portion is spent as a pension for invalids. No matter whether we like it or not we have to admit that we have to keep the invalids. No New Zealander would have it said for a single moment that he allowed an invalid to starve or suffer in any way. Every honourable, honest New Zealander would be

proud, if to-morrow he could proclaim to the world that in his country no invalid was allowed to want, and that there was not an invalid in his country that had not just as good an opportunity to recover his health as any other person. There is so little difference between us now that I think the whole measure could be enacted quite simply, and 1 am quite sure that after this discussion the Minister of Pensions will be more confirmed in his idea that next year the Government. will be taking this matter up and introducing a measure to deal with it.

WE MUST CARE TOR THE SICK. Mr. Stallworthy: Will the honourable gentleman be prepared to reduce the term of residence from twentyfive to fifteen years? Would that not tremendously increase the weight? Mr. O’Brien; By the time a person has been in this country fifteen, years and tails sick, it is up to us to keep him. I would even reduce the term below fifteen years; I would make it five years or even less, because when you accept any citizen to your shores you have a duty to see that that citizen does not suffer if he falls sieK and becomes an invalid. I do not believe in these restrictive measures. I was recently in Australia and visited one Colony where there are rather few unemployed ,and there was an influx of population from the other States on that account. Certain members of the Government had suggested that some restriction be placed on those coming i nto the country and s 0 swelling tAe number of unemployed. I spoke with |.} le Acting-Premier on the mat/er and he said | 0 me; “1 can not seep that. jf they come to this

State, we are not going to say they are not Australians, and that, they should not receive relief work or pay just because they have come in from another State. I am opposing such suggestions.’’ An idea had been put , forward that if three or four months’ residence would qualify people for relief work, it might help that State; i but I was very pleased to hear the Acting-Premier say that lie "would not stand for such legislation. Consequently, I cannot agree with the member for Eden that fifteen years might be too low. If I had my way. 1 would make it much less than tha.. As a matter of fact, for the hon. member s information, I would say that this Bill is modelled on the Australian Act, more or less. ARE WE AS GOOD AS AUSTRALIA. I'he Right. Hon. Mr. Forbes; Is the figure, £1 per week, the same? Mr. O’Brien: Yes, it used to lie £1 per week, but it was cut by 2/G a week., making it. 17/fi a week. Every invalid in Australia received £1 per week from the Federal Government; and 1. as a New Zealander, refuse to think for one instant that th«’ Australian, can do any better for theU invalids than we can do for ours. Mr. Forbes; £1 a week for each chi Id ? Mr. O’Brien: Ng, I lie Bill does not provide for that at all! It provides £1 a. week for each invalid ami 10/, not £l, a week for each child. That is all the Bill provides for. There is nothing at all to prevent us looking as well after our invalids as Austra-

lia or any other country looks after its invalids, provided the Minister will take the Bill up seriously. 1 know my limitations; and it is up to the Minister of Pensions, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. If they only like, they can say to-morrow that for the future every invalid will he looked after, will be provided with a pension that will put him or her beyond the fear of absolute want. I do not care if the Minister of Pensions or the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance decides to improve the Bill in some way, provided it is not cut about too much. What I wanr more than anything is that the principle shall be established here in New Zealand, even if we only make a start in a small .yvay. The people of the future will probably see to it that the invalids here in New Zealand have the same treatment. —or, perhaps, better treatmen; than in any other country on earth. A BURDEN TO HIS WIFE \ND FAMILY. There are one or two points that 1 want to make. Frequently we see a very healthy man struck down by sickness, a man who has earned big money. Suddenly he becomes ill. He has a wife ami a large, family. His earning power goes at once. There is not a penny coming into the house. If that man passed away his wife would receive the widows’ pension, of probably £2 or £3 a week—£3/5/- is the limit now. Such an invalid, perhaps, thinks that he is rather in the way, that he is really a burden on his wife and family, that if he passed away his wife would receive the widows’ pension. The hon. member for Buller brings my memory back to a great friend of mine who thought like that. He had a large family, and he prayed for death so that his wife could get the widows’ pension. Other friends' of mine, too, have come to me and said that they have thought of committing suicide, so that their wives might draw the widows’ pension. Why should New Zealand permit that state of affairs to continue? Why should we not pass such a measure as I have introduced and provide for invalids and their families? Surely it is not too much. OVER PRODUCTION AND BEGGING INVALIDS. One of the great problems that face

New Zealand to-day—one can hear it discussed at almost any street corner —is,' How are we to get the good things that are produced into the hands of the consumers? Nearly everybody has come to the conclusion that we want some kind of a bridge, so that what is produced can be handed on to the consumers without there being a surplus, for the surplus is what is | troubling us. Different credit and currency advocates have told us, through the columns of the press ami through their organizations, that thev have a solution, that if we would adopt perhaps, the Douglas credit system or some other system we could fix the thing all right and consumption would keep up with production; there would' he no surplus, and everything would go on swimmingly. lam offering to the Government one method which, I think, will help more than any other to overcome the problem of over-pro-duction. If we give to the invalids and their families sufficient to provide them with the necessaries of life, we shall do a great deal towards overcoming the surplus that is being piled up day by day. T said before that Australia has had this pension for a considerable number of years. Even though there have been changes of Government in that country, when a change has taken place from Labour Io 'Tory, no Tory Government lias seen 1 fit Io repeal the invalid pension law. Mr. Webb; Although I hey opposed it nt ils inception. Mr. O’Brion; They did. They op posed it most bitterly. Jf we go back to the battle for the old-age pension in this country we find that it was opposed just as bitterly. Some of the good old Tory members voted as often as eighty odd times against the proposal to establish oldage pensions, but still old-age pensions were established, and nobody would suggest for a moment that we should repeal the old-age pensions legislation. Unfortunately a cut was made in the old-age pensions, and I think that was rather a pill to swallow for most members even thought they voted for it. Old-age pensions have become part of the system of New Zealand, just as in a few years time invalid pensions will become part of the sys-

tem of New Zealand. I venture to say that in a few years it will be impossible to find one member of Parliament who will oppose invalid pensions. Indeed T do not think one could find one member of Parliament to-day who would oppose invalid penWHERE'S THE MONEY? Many members will say that the time is not opportune, that there is not sufifeient money. Where is the money to come from? We have heard that cry before. Mr. Forbes: Where would it come from ? Mr. O’Brien; Where all the money the Prime Minister has helped to spend during the last few years has come from? Out of the pockets of the people? The right honourable member is not so- innocent as he tries to make out. He knows as well as I do where the money would come from if he decided to establish invalid pensions to-morrow. He knows quite well that the finances of New Zealand would not be affected one iota if he decided Io adopt this Bill. When he raised the rate of exchange he took a far graver step. He knows that! I have here one of the new Reserve Bank pound notes. The old bank notes used to read: “I promise to pay to the bearer one pound sterling,” but the new Reserve Bank notes, which are printed by Thomas de la Rue, of London, read, “The Reserve Bank of New Zealand promises to pay . . . one pound,” no mention being made of 11 sterling”. They do not say a pound of what! It is more or less inflation, or reflation if you like. I think that is what the Prime Minister is getting at—there will he a. certain amount of reflation, but by printing some of these notes I Imre will be more money in eireuFation that will help the Prime Minister and his Government out of some of the dif-

ficulties they have got into. However, I do not want to labour that point, but I think the Prime Minister knows what I am getting at. Mr. Polson; Will me hon. gentleman explain Clause 6? Is it not possible under that clause for an invalid and his wife and ten children to obtain £674 a year by way of pension? Mr. O’Brien: If the hon. member I will read the Will carefully he will find that the Commissioner of Pensions is the sole judge of the amount of pension to be paid under the BillMr. Polson: Surely that is too much’ Mr. O’Brien: The honourable member has not read the Bill! The Pill is so drawn that the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions has the final say as to what amount shall be paid to the invalid. AVc believe that he would be fair since he has a good deal of say now. Even if an invalid were to get the amount quoted by the hon. member for Stratford, and it took that amount to keep that man and his family, then ho should get it! Mr. Forbes; Is that not too niudi ? Air. O’Brien: There is a provision in the Bill saying that an invalid shall receive £1 per week, his wife shall draw £1 per week and 10/- per week shall be’paid in respect of all children under 16. 'That will enable them to get the delicacies that are essential in the case of an invalid. NOT ENOUGH. Take a man with a wife and three children. lie would receive £3/10 - per week. Will any hon. member dare tell me that that is too much for an invalid his wife and three children? Nd. Indeed that is too little. The Bill has been drawn on conservative lines in the hope that the (Government will take it up. The Bill has been promoted by one who has the interests of rhe invalids at heart. Mr. Forbes: Will the hon. member explain the latter part of Clause b?

Mr O’Brien;—That allows a pensioner to receive an invalid pension if he has an income of 10s per week for each child. It says, —“Provided that in the case of a pensioner having wife ami children depending on him, the Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, may increase the amount of pension by liftytwo pounds per annum in the case oi a wife with an additional twentv-six pounds per annum for every chi hl u'i der the age of sixteen years. In the case of a wife dependent on a pensioner, the pensioner’s income together with the pension, must not exceed one hundred and fifty-four poumis per annum together with an additional fifty-two poumis per annum for child under sixteen years. Air O’Brien had his time extended by the House. ft T do not want to be harsh in dealing with certain men who might <-riticise this measure, although I '-ould perhaps if I so desired. In other words I want to be mendicant pleading tor justice, pleading for mercy, pleading for. charity—lf you wish —for the invalids of New Zealand who ought to be looked after properly. LEAVE INVALIDS THEIR MANHOOD. ‘‘ We want people who happen to fall by the wayside as far as health is concerned to still retain some ot their manhood, and no man can retain his manhood if he is an invalid anil has to go to a hospital board and plead for rations or some kind of charitable aid. To me. as to any one else who has lived a kind of independent life, it is repugnant that any person should have to do that. One might demand things, but it is hard to have to go and plead for charity and once a man has to plead for charity the foundation of his independent manhood has gone, and I do not want any one to have to do it. A° one should be placed in the position of

having to do so merely because he has fallen sick or met with an accident. It is not his fault; it is not his family’s fault; it is not his wife’s fault; And surely it is the work of every New Zealander, and particularly of every member of this House, to see that a man in that position has some independence left io him and that there is a recognition of his right to at least the necessaries of life. I move the second reading of the Bill, and I commend the measure to everv member of the House, with the request that he will take everything into consideration when he is speaking or voting on the Bill. Mr Polson: If a man had ten children his income would be £674. Air O'Brien: Well, if it took that to keep them, it would not be too much! Air Polson: But is that not an outrageous amount? Mr O’Brien: If the honourable gentleman had ten children it would take that to keep them! As a matter of fact, what the Prime Minister is complaining about is the exemption of income provided in the Bill. Certain exemptions are provided so that a man can have an income and still draw' a pension. but it must be reasonable, in the opinion of the Commissioner <»f Pensions or his Deputy, before he gets his pension. The Prime Minister will know that. A PLEA TO SILENT MEMBERS. “While I do not want to take undue advantage of the extension of the time, for which I have to thank the House, I do wish to say that 1 hope that Members on the government side will take up this measure and discuss it, and by their actions and their speeches, show that this invalid pension is necessary in New Zealand. If they do that, and impress upon the Government that they are sincere in their demand for legislation of this character I am positive that with their assistance we would be able- to wear down any opposition to this proposal As a matter of fart, 1 do not think there is much opposition to it on the government benches. ] know that at times 1 have accused the Prime Minister of being very hard-hearted and I think the right honourable gentleman has become accustomed to hearing me criticise his policy rather severly, but I believe that in the bottom of his heart there is a desire to help the invalids of this country if he could seehis way to do it. If there were sufficient pressure behind him from the members on the Government benches, the right honourable gentleman would seriously consider the passing of legislation similar to the measure which I have had the honour to introduce,. Tn conclusion I to say that that time is not very far distant. I am pleading for the invalids who cannot help themselves. T am one of those who frequently visit the homes of invalids and try to help them along. T do not want to harrow* the feelings of members of the House by telling of the conditions I have seen in such homes for nearly every member knows something of these conditions from his own experience. I want to make this final appeal to the Government to introduce a measure of this description, and if other .members support this appeal we will have invalids pensions in this country in a very short time. It is not my responsibility alone, it is not the responsibility of the members on these benches, it is the responsibility of every member of this House, and peculiarly that of the Government that this legislation was not placed on the statute-book of this country long ago.