THE H.B. TRIBUNE. SATURDAY, OCT. 6, 1917. SOME PENSION POINTS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VII, Issue 294, 6 October 1917, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. SATURDAY, OCT. 6, 1917. SOME PENSION POINTS.

A copy of the War Pensions Amendment P Bill, as first .submitted by the Minister, is at length before us, and, as bad been anticipated, it contains nothing setting right what aPP ea * tq us defects in minor matters of policy, vet important enough to merit remedy In writing on the subject some few weeks ago it was suggested that the military pension, once granted, should be deemed a dearly bought right as absolutely inalienable and unforfeitable as an annuriv bought with money from a life insuianei office It should not be regarded as savouring in any way of compassion. It is a thing that has been hardly and honourably earned, and should be paid and made acceptable to. the recipient not as a recognition oi Ins or her necessities, but as a mark ot gratitude—perhaps not altogether adequate but still sufficient ns a symbol—for a supreme service rendered to the State, and no circumstance should be allowed to take it awav. The legislature has shown a disposition to accept this principle as a basis, yet we find that there still stands operative a clause (Section 16) in the original Act which reserves to the Pension Board the power “in any case,” and presumably at any ■ time, “ to review its determination in the event of the circumstances of a pensioner being altered or for any other sufficient reason/ and, with the approval of the Min-ister,-to “withdraw any pension, or . . . diminish the rate of any pension.” The amendment now bcfor the House certainly provides that, so far as members of the Forces are themselves concerned, a pension once permanently granted “shall not afterwards be reduced on account of any change in. the earning capacity of the member.” But this, it is contended, is not enough. Everv man who has fought, or is to fight," for us, and whose misfortune it has been or may be to qualify for pension, whether for himself or for his dependants, should be able to feel with complete confidence that the dearly earned recognition of his sacrifice is his or theirs under all conditions that may arise. A grateful country may take occasion, under altered circumstances, to increase a pension, but there should be no possible chance of its being either decreased or cancelled, and the power of review in these directions should be definitely removed from the Statute book.

Then again, the question of the marriage, or re-marriage, of a female dependant most certainly deserves attention at- the hands pi those in authority. Under the main Act- (Sec. 9) the pension to the widow of a deceased member of the Forces ceases on her re-marriage, and under the amending Act of last year (Sec. 6 Subsec. 2) the pension to any other female dependant, . . . ‘ ceases on her marriage. Apart altogether, from matters of sentiment, anything tending to operate as a restraint upon, or discouragement from, marriage is, as a matter of fixed policy, looked upon with suspicion and disfavour by both legislatures and courts in British countries. Under post-war conditions this sound principle applies with redoubled force when we consider the abnormal wastage of human life that has to be made good. The Government has itself recognised this in its provision ia the present Bill for the inclusion among a disabled soldier’s pensionable dependants of the wife he may take- to himself within two years after his discharge. Here we have a direct incentive offered to marriage with a disabled man. But even this is done half-heartedly, tor the Bill goes on to provide that upon the death of the husband the wife’s pension is to cease, without ahy regard whatever to the responsibilities she may have incurred by fulfiUing the function that the State has obviously in view for her. Her pension, if she is to have one at all, should surely, be continued after the death of the husband, especially, if she has borne children for him. In any event, his death may take place at a period in her life when she has herself both lost the capacity for earning her own livelihood and passed the time when chances of remarriage are in any way bright. With regard to the marriage of female pensioners generally it seems to ns that the broad principle already stated should be allowed to have the fullest play, exception perhaps being made with regard to an alien marriage. As has been previously urged the pension may not be of such an amount as to weigh very seriously with the average woman contemplating matrimony ; but it will probably be with the cautious and thrifty, likely to make the best mothers, that- it would weigh most. On the other hand, among thoserjn the poorer ranks, where the retention of the pension would naturally .assume the more serious importance, there must always be grave danger, in case it ceases on marriage, of the formation of illicit unions with all their long train of social miseries. Another feature to which objection may well be raised is the disqualification attending residence outside the Dominion. Under last year’s amending Act (Sec. 8) “no pension to any dependant; other, than the mother, father, wife, or children of a soldier may be granted or paid if the claimant or pensioner is not, or mav cease to be, resident in Xew Zealand.” Such a restriction as this is purely arbitrary, and is wholly at variance, with the broad Imperial spirit which we are asked to cultivate. Residence.. within the

Empire should provide quite a narrow enough limit, and arguments might easily enough be adduced for regarding this as not broad enough. Probably the proper course would be to make the pension voidable only by an actual change of nationality. Then again, the principal Act (Sec. 19) gives power to suspend or withdraw a pension in case of conviction for an offence punishable —whether so punished or not —by imprisonment for three months . or upwards. This is an. altogether vicious provision. The court before which the conviction may be secured is surely the best judge of the measure of the penalty, and may be left to impose one adequate to the otfence, without regard to the possibility of its being by a Pensions Board whose functions should end with the awarding of the pensions. It is easily conceivable that a casual criminal would only be hardened in his ways by being deprived of the very means which might permit of his making a fresh start. The matters enumerated are, we venture to think, well worthy of consideration by our legislators, wko are for the moment probably too engrossed in the discussion, of bare figures to have had time to notice them for themselves.