War Pensions

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 199, 8 August 1923, Page 4

War Pensions

Bill Through Committee THE BOARDS POWERS. DISCRETION RETAINED. [Per Press Association.] Wellington, Aug. 7. The House of Representatives this afternoon went into committee ou the War Pensions Amendment Bill. At clause 3 Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) Nought to amend the Bill in the direction of eliminating the discretionary power of the Pension Board and making the granting of pensions mandatory. The Chairman of Committees ruled the amendment out of order, as it involved an appropriation of public moneys. Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) then moved that sub-clause 3. of clause 3 lie deleted. The sub-clause in question provides for the repeal of section 3 of the Finince Act, 1920, conferring on the War Pensions Board authority to Srant additional pensions to totally isabled members of the forces. Mr. Holland argued that the deletion of the sub-clause would leave things as they are. Whatever rights were given by section 3 of the Finance Act, 1920, would remain. The Minister contended that the deletion of the suh-clause was necessary to avoid creating an anomaly, as all that it contained was adopted in the Bill. The discussion was proceeded when the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Immediately on the House resuming at 7.30 a division was taken on Mr. Hollaud’s amendment, sub-clause 3 being retained by 33 to 31. On clause 4 Mr. Lee again said he desired to see the law made mandatory, so that the law should be written not that the Board “may” grant an economic pension to a wife and children, k but that such pension “shall” be so gianted. They did not want the promises of the Minister that these pensions would be granted. They wanted clear-cut definite instructions to the Board which would enable holders to understand exactly where they- were. Mr. Holland moved an amendment that the’clause lie referred back to the Government with a view to having the clause made mandatory. He said that during the 5.30 adjournment they hail heard representatives of the Returned Soldiers’ Association, and they were emphatic that these provisions should lie made mandatory.

Sir R. H Rhodes, Minister of Defence, contended that discretionary power must be given to the Board to prevent a wife with a considerable sum of money in her own right obtaining a pension. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart said if the clauses were made mandatory there would be no need for the Pensions Board at all. The discussion was proceeding when the Chairman of Committees ruled the amendment out of order. On Mr. Holland’s motion the Speaker was called in to review the Cnairman’s reuling. which he sustained. . Discussing the clause as a whole both Mr. Lee and Mr. Armstrong protested against the discretionary powers of the Board, which in the past had only led to griveous disappointment. In the course of a conciliatory speech, the Premier said the Bill was a good one. It was a peat advance on past legislation, but if not perfect it could be amended next session, Mr H. Poland (Ohinemun) said they had been passing pensions legislation since 1915 and now they were told if this Bill were not perfect another could be passed. This Bill <l’<l not Rive soldiers justice, let alone generosity. The permissive power given to the Board was a practical intimation that they should not exercise their powers to the fulk .. xi J Sir R. H. Rhodes said the evidence was that the soldiers were satisfied with the administration of the Board. It was the legislation with which they were not satisfied. Now the legislation was being broadened to give still wider powers to the Board Mr. L. M. Issitt (Christchurch North) said he was not disposed to take aU discretionary power out of the hands of the Board, but he thought that if they provided against a wile with an income in her own right ' ing the pension this clause might be made mandatory. , In the course of subsequent remaiKs the Premier said he was disposed to think the suggestion a good one. but they cpuld not stop to give such a fine point full consideration at that stage. He however, was prepared to give it serious consideration l®ter on. Mr. P Fraser (Wellington Central) said there was grave dissatisfaction with the discretionary powers of the Board and they were bound to pay respect to the wishes of the soldiers on this point He therefore moved that the clause be the purpose of enabling the Go>ernment to reconsider it and as a result make it mandatory. . . . Mr E J Howard (Christchurch South) said it was quite the Premier and his ministers had net consulted together since they heard the representations of the ret “F ned . 80 diers. and he suggested that the clause should be hold over until after the supper adjournment to give them an opportunity of holding a consultation and giving the result to the committee when 11 A ’divKion on Mr. ment was taken immediately after the supper adjournment, the P® s g°" e S ent ' of clause 4 being reiected by 34 to of. The clause was then passed. At clause 10 the Minister announced that he was prepared to permit the Ileturned Soldiers’ Association to select its own representative on the. appeal (ward without any the Government. The proposed panel ot six from which the Government would select one would be abandoned. He moved accordingly, the amendment being carried on the voices. Mr. Lee suggested that the clause should also give the soldier the right of appeal against refusal of the Tensions Board to grant an economic pension, which did not exist at.present. The Minister promised -that Cabinet would give the suggestion careful consideration There were difficulties in the Way, but he hoped they could be overcome. . . Mr Itolleston suggested that the appekl board should be comprised of th® Arbitration Court which was presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court which went all over the country and could hear appeals.as they went along, giving uniform decisions. It was quite certain if the appeal court was not comprised of men of the highest standard the position of the Pensions Board would become intolerable. It was unfair to put a civilian to sit in judgment on the decisions of a magistrate. Mr. Massey: I think I can get a King’s Council. . Both Mr. Isitt and Mr. bright urged that in complicated and difficult cases the benefit of the doubt should be given to injured men ever ytime. During further discussion Mr. Massey said he realised that paragraph (a) of sub-clause 4 (functions of tpe Board) required amendment. It was not broad enough to meet all cases and he was prepared to have the whole matter reconsidered and bring down an amendment later on. The clause was agreed to and the remainder of the clause was passed uncontested. w In reply’ to Mr. Holland. Sir R. H. Rhodes said he could not concede the point asked for bv the Returned Soldiers’ Association the widow- of a soldier in all cases, without exception should receive the pension. The Bill went further than the legislation of anv other country, but no country had as far as suggested. The Bill was then reported.