INVALID PENSIONS

Grey River Argus, 10 September 1935, Page 2

INVALID PENSIONS

MR. J. O’BRIEN’S BILL Interesting Debate Mr. J. O'Brien M.P. for Westland Again introduced his Invalid Pension! Bill to the House of Parliament’ on Friday morning and pleaded strongly

for the Government do take up the measure so as to allow pensions to be paid in New Zealand. As previously, the Bill was well received and some sixteen members addressed the House in favour of i-t’, while no- voice was heard against it. Following is a speech of the Member for Westland on the Bill.

On t'he question, 'that leave be granted to introduce this Bill Mr O’Brien (Westland) said: Sir, the Bill Ti am asking leave to introduce is one that has been before this House on previous occasions, and is one that has been more or less promised to the people for many years. Various governments and parties previous to general elections have placed this Bill on their circulars and included it in their p'atforms as something that would be done for the people if they managed to gain office. For the last quarter of a century the people have been led t’o expect a measure of this kind. Some twenty-four years ago the late Sir Joseph Ward advocated a similar measure and proposed to set up a commission to inquire into invalid pensions. The late Mr. Massey also promised that a measure of this kind would be introduced, and the United Party did the same. I think almost every member of the House and others on »the hustings have, at some time or other, advocated some form of invalid pension, and T would go so far as to say that a majority in t’he House al the present time are in favour of :i measure of this description. Still up till now we have done nothing, and 1 know che difficulty a private member has to contend with, and I know quite well the length I can get unless tlie Government takes up the measure and places it on the statut'e-book. I do not think anyone can argue that New Zealand is a country that cannot introduce such a measure and pay r handsome invalid pension. In Austra'ia -for many years they have had nn invalid pension and no one would say that' Australia is in a better position to produce wealth than Now Zealand, which is a far richer country per capita, with a much higher rate of production and resources that as yet have been hardly touched. So that if Australia can do it’, wo ought ’o be able to do it in a still better manner. 1 have drawn up the Bill in such a way that it will fil 1 the gap in our soc ial legislation. We have got pensions for the aged, the blind and the widows and soldiers and miners phthisis pensions, and nobody can say that 'they ar? too high; but our pensions system can never ho complete until the invalid is provided for Kt is all very web for members to say that- the Hospital Boards can do the work that an invalid pension might do buj the relief granted by the Hospital Boards is quite inadequate for an invalid. At thj nios-t' the Board may give him £2, £3 or £4 a month, and I have known a .little more given on occasions; but the r lief is absolutely insufficient, and the inva'ids or their families have to go to the Relief Depots. I. am sure that nobody wants t'o see an invalid or his family going to a Relief Depot simply because sickness has fallen upon him for the time being. I think ihat the manhood or the womanhood o-r the nation is humiliated and broken down by people having to go to such places. Another thing, of course, is that a man or a woman must display his or her poverty by going there; and nobody likes to do that. Frequently col'cctions are t'akcn up or benefit concerts, etc. are given Tor those who happen to be temporarily in want, and those who give are those who are giving all the time. But if a country says that' an invalid pension is necessary, everybody would contribute alike; help in such cases should not depend entirely upon the goodheartod. It is not only in New Zealand that this measure is being considered. It has been considered by the Int'ernationa Labour Office, and here is a short extract from (Report No. 7 of that Office: —“The worker in the big factory, badly paid, unable to save weakened by exhaustive .labour and insufficient nourishment' fell into destitut : on when unable to work through sickness. This

was a period of great misery, when tl ere was slowly formed under the pressure of suffering and feeling of solidarity which was .necessary for the achievement of security against the risks of the worker’s life. In face of this distress t’he laissex fair© State preserved an attitude of indifference. Believing as it did in equality before the law and economic liberty, it elevated inactivity to the dignity of a doctrine. Statesmen and members of Parliament wore fully occupied with political problems; few indeed appreciated the social significance of -t’he industrial revolution which was going forward under their eyes. 'Phus for a 'ong time the public authorities intervened no further than to distribute bread -tickets to 'the families of workers who were sick and unemployed.” That is the position here to-day. All we can think of is distributing the bread token to the family of the worker who is sick and unemployed; and i't is time that a wealthy country like this already suffering from overproduction, got away from that kind of thing and made pensions for the invalid a right. Considerable criticism has been offered when this measure has been before the Hduse on previous occasions. In 1930 the Minist'er of Pensions said, in respect to such a Bill as this, that to pay an invalid pension on an old-age pension basis, woulq cost. £400.000 a year. Ijl 1931 the same Minister said there were 11,834 invalids and a pension for them would cost £615,420 per annum. The amount had gone up by £215.000 in one year. Quite recently the Minister of Lands made a statement which has been broadcast throughout the country—l think every newspaper published i't. He said that there are 15,000 invalids in the Dominion, and the cost would be £1.7000 000. Such arguments are made for the purpose of preventing an invalid pension from coming into being in this country. Every time a pension has been suggested by some of 'those humanitarians who want' a pension, a similar argument has been put up. Had either the Minister of Lands or the Minister of Pensions taken the trouble to look into the mat'-

ter, he would have discovered that the Bill has quite a number of savings and is not likely to cost nearly so much as stated. I do not say that the first figures of the Minister of Pensions were altogether wrong; but I will take the statement’ of the Minister of Land! that there are 15,000 invalids and they would all be getting a pen si on. He might have told us at the same time that' there are 91,245 people over the age of 65, and that only 37 000 of them are drawing an old-age pension; and he might have mentioned that there is a large number of saw ings under the Bill. If we put invalids into hospital, the average cost? per bed is £173 4s per head. The charitable-aid distributed in 1931-32 was £369,326, and in 1932-33 it was £294.671. It is less costly to give an invalid pension by right. When invalids have been put into a home the cost has been very much greater. If is better -for them to have that, penSxOn and to stay in their own homes. Uris Bill provides for a pension of £1 a week for a man and his wife and 10s for each child. No one will say that 'that is too much. Further, the Bill has regard to income and property and relatives contributing to maintenance of the invalid. No pension is payable if relatives, such as father or mother, husband or wife, can maintain the invalid. Further, those who are receiving the old-age pension, the widow’s pension, or the blind pension, are not eligible. W T hen al! these savings are taken into consideration it will be seen that the amount the pension would cost the State would not. be one-half or one-quarter of that suggested by t'he Minister of Lands. I am rather sorry that’ he used the argument he did. I want to ask is there any bon. gentleman present who is willing to make the statement that it is .not' our duty to look after the sick? Are we going to let ‘them scratch for themselves, in t'h e wretched way in which they have been doing in the past? I therq is a man who thinks in that way. let him get up and make a st'atement to that effect. I believe that if a vote were taken n ow we should 'have a good majority in favour of it. I know that, as a private member, I am not likely to get very far; but 1 do wish to recommend this Bill to -rhe Government. The Minister in charge of Pensions has stated that he is going to place this matter before Cabinet. I hope he does in the strongest manner possible because this matter has been held over too long altogether. If the Minister would do his utmost and the members of the House wou'd do their best we could get the Bi-V incorporated in the law’ of the country. Considering the amount of wealth in New Zealand, and the state ment that we ar e round the corner and all that kind of thing, the money should be available to pay for invalidity pensions. If we cannot obtain an adequate pension we wil! be glad to get some kind of pension, even if it. is based on the old-age pension so 1 as to get the thing established. We ' could then increase -the pension as time went on. I sincerely commend this

matter to the earnest consideration of every member of the House. Invalids have been expecting t'he pension for many years. Indeed they have been led to expect it. and when a general election comes round a party should not use this matter for window dressing in the hope of catching a few votes and then drop the subject for another three years. That sort of thing has happened during the last quarter of a century. If a party advocates pensions for invalids it should, if i; is elected to the. Treasury benches see that such pensions are granted. Promises made should be kept. The two parties that are now occupying t'he Treasury benches have both at different times stated they wore in favour of invalidity pensions. They are strong enough to put the legislation on the statute book. I can assure them that the members on this side of 't'he House wrill lend them all the assistance necessary.

Mr. A. M. Samuel (Thames) con gratulated the Member for Westland and s>t’ated that all these years the position was becoming more acute. I't was not a matter that could be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. He hoped Che Government -would not treat th e Bill as a pre-election pledge and then drop it’. The Minister should te'l the House what he was going to do. Mr. J Jordan (Ma.nakau) said the thanks of the House and the country were due to the Member for Westland for persistently introducing the Bill. He quoted the case of a blind man who committed suieidle so that his wife and family could draw the Widow’s Pension. Mr. Coleman (Gisborne) Commend ed the Bill which he held is long over due. Mr. F. Jones (Dunedin South) Extended his congratulations on the introduction of the Bill and quoted cases of tuberculosis and cancer which became a direct charge on Hospital Boards, that would be relieved by an invalids pension. He also pointed out that sometimes t'he Charitab'e Aid distributed by a Ilosital Board was 5/per week for young women and 7/6 for young men. Mr. F. Schramm (Auckland East) said that- frequently those who had been refused pensions had a greater moral claim than those who obtain them. H(> stated that there were an ever growing number of such cases for •t'here was .no provision in law. Mr A. Richards (Roskil!) expressed admiration for such a humane measure. Mr. 11. T. Armstrong (Christchurch) held that New Zealand was the wealthiest country in the world and shou'd provide -for those who were broken in 'health before they reached the age of 65 years, and also that pensions shoull be granted according to the need of the people,

Mr. It A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) agreed with what others had said, and did not think any member of the House was against the Bill. H? also pointed how workers with invalid wives were 'hampered and that hospitals wore not’ ready to receive chonic inva'ids.

Mr. P. C. Webb (Buller) said:—Sir, I first wish to congratulate 'the hon. member for Westland on the reap pearance of this very important Bill. I hoped that the Minister would contribute something 'towards this debate eanlier in the morning, because had the Minister replied to the hon. member for Westland and given an indica tio.n of what he proposed to do a good deal of this debate would have been unnecessary. If t'here is one Bill that everybody seems agreed upon it is the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Westland I am sure the hon. member for Westland interpreted the humane conscience of the people when he drafted this Bill No matter where one goes the cry is,

“Why cannot we evolve a pensions scheme whereby Hospital Boards will not have occasion to dole cut’ a few paltry pounds and humiliate not only the receivers but in many cases the givers'?” The Unemployment Board has rendered very valuable service in this connection, blit t'here are thousands of wor n out workers who can never be rehabilitated in their usual occupations. Their health has gone their strength has gone. The medical opinion is that practically every miner vv'ho has rendered any great service to mining has taken at least ten years off his life. Rnnumerable representations are made to me by miners who want pensions. When the miners are X-rayed the Board says, “They are worn-out men. They are not miners phthisis cases at all.” Their hearts are mostly strained and, their constitu' ions 'have gone. The hard toil, -t'he drumming of machines in this mech anical ag? has wrecked the nervous system and constitutions of thousands of people who can never hope to reach the age of 65 years when thi*y may qualify for the old-age pension. These people have 'to be kept’, and sure.lv it is not beyo.nd th 0 capacity of this House to evolve a scheme whereby those in need may be assisted. The medical evidence taken in Australia concerning the health of returned sold iers was to the effect’ 'that those who had very much war service knocked, ten years off their lives. There is no work fur the physically fit. even the very best men finding it difficult to find anything like a half-fime job at the moment’, so what chance have the invalids or worn-out men got I think it behoves the Minister, particularly when an important matter like this ix brought up, to make fhe position of the Government quite clear. Hon. Mr. Cobbe.—l hav'e had no chan co. Mr Webb:—The honorable gent'eman has had a number of chances. 1 will give the Minister an opportunity to speak I want, to congratulate the honourab e member for Westland upon bis persistence in bringing before this House one of the most crying neces sitities of the day. I believe that a hundred per cent' of the people of the Dominion would approve a scheme o-f this kind. We have in our midst peo pie Who are worn out through hard work, and people who are not fit for work and the whole of our pensions scheme must be reviewed in order to make provision for these folks. Provision must be made to meet the cases of invalids in homes. How many people have broken down through .t'he nursing of invalids in their homes? Surely we should giv' C them some pension to enable them to obtain he p. I am not going to prevent the Minister from speaking upon t'he matter but' I would like 'to again congratulate the honourable member for Westland upon his introduction of this Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us •tliat a Government measure dealing with, the question is coming down this session for h e can rest assured that it will receive 100 per cent support of this side of the House. Hon J. G. Cobbe (Minister of Pensions) stated that the Bill had his and the Government’s sympathy but it was a matter of money. The member of Westland who introduced the Bill did not say what the cost of such a pension would be. TT t » 'had discussed •the measure with his Department and it was estimated it would cost £780.000 per annum, and if the women were added over one million, bn these matters they had to make haste slow'y. A 'arge sum of money was involved, but the Bill would receive the consideration of the Government.

Mr W. Nash (Hutt) said that the Minister’s figures were vastly different from those quoted by the Minister of! Lands, and considered that the figures giVen by the Minist'er could be more than cut in half. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) contended that the Minister’s statement re members not giving the cost' of the pension was a poor one. The Minister 'had a Department and a staff of statisticians who could fine them the cost. Mr. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) stated that i,f ever t’he opportunity came to give effect to the Bill it was going to be done. It seemed that’ we were unable to face up to the real problem of being our brothers keeper. The first charge on production should be the case of those who cannot work Mr. O’Brien in reply said: I wish to thank those members who have so warmly supported this Bill for the contribution they have made to 'the debate. The hon member for Nelson said if was time for collective action, and that is quite true. On e man cannot do this job and it is a matter that' should be tackled collectively. The hon member for Timaru said that the Bill does not go -far enough. Perhaps I was a bit humh'e whe n I drew up the measure, since I endeavoured to prepare a Bill that would fit in with the finance of this country. I think we might go even further than the Bill proposes to go. and still keep from going insolvent’. The ho n member for Avon said it was not a matter of seven

or eight years. I think I mentioned already that the question 'has been before this country for the last quarter of a century. During that time every party has in some way or other indicated that if it gained the Treasury benches invalid pensions would be granted. However, nothing has been done The hon member for Avon says that those who now apply for charitable aid or relief have to go before a committee and that is the curse of it. When you hav e independent citizens having to humble themselves by going before a committee to plead their poverty in the face perhaps of those they have known for many years, it is -time we carefuldv considered ’t'he position. The honourable member for Thames said the position was getting more acute and it should not be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. I do not think truer words have ever been spoken. Measures like this should not be judged i n terms of pounds, shillings and pence, and the honourab e gentleman went, 011 *to ask the Government not to deal with it as

a pre-election promise but to toll the House what it intends to do. The Minister has not given us much indication of what he is going to do. but is looking for some further in formation. The honourable member for Manukau told us -the story of a poor fellow who committed suicide. Any man who is mixed up with cases of hardship has heard o H more than one occasion of some poor chap who has stated that his family would be better off if he were dead, and as a matter of fact I have prevented > man from faking 'the extreme step of committing suicide because he thought by that means he would get a pension for his widow. My time is too limited to answer in detai.! all that has been said but the honourable member

for Dunedin Soiu'h told us of IG7 eases that had come before the Otago Hospital Board, and of relief being granted at the rate of 5s for a young single woman and 7s 6d for a young man Those in actual poverty who are invalids for the time being are expected to live on such a sum However I wish to get.' to the Minister’s reply but before doing so wish to refer to a remark of the honourable member for Wellington Suburbs who said the hos pitals were not prepared to receive these peop e. That is so ecause they are chronic cases, and so what are we going to do? A pension B denied them and nothing is going to be done. Now as to the Minister’s statement. He says that a member introducing a measure of this kind should tell the Government what the cost' would be. But previously the Minister himself has aimed at telling the Government what the cost would be, because in 1930 he said t'hat to pay invalids on t'he o d-agc pension basis would cost £400,000 a year. That is on record in Hansard. In 1931, dealing with the same question, he said there were 11, 834 invalids and the cost would amount to £615,420. He now says it would cost £780,000 a year. The -Minister of Lands said the cost would ibe £1,700,000. but the Minister of Pensions has jumped the amount up from his former figures to about £l,00(i.000. Now if the Minister wants to know what the cost would be he is in the best position of finding if out than anyone else. He knows ’he number of invalids, it is a simple matter to find out the number of invalids who can be supported by their families, as provided in the Bill, and 'those already provided for by some form of pension whether old-age, miners, blind or widows., and those w*ho have sufficient money to carry on The Minister can have al the information he wants inside a week if he is earnest, about it. and the exact cost of the proposals under <the Bill. He is simply baulking the question.

The hour of one o’clock having arrived Mr. Speaker left the chair. Mr. O’Brien’s speech in reply will be concluded when the Bill again comes before the House.