RECIPROCAL PENSIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 281, 26 October 1934, Page 9

RECIPROCAL PENSIONS

NEW ZEALAND AND BRITAIN. THE RESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATION.^ Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 25. In the House of Representatives this afternoon a discussion on providing pensions for elderly people who have not the residential qualifications for the old-age pension followed the report of the Public Petitions Committee, which recommended that the matter of reciprocity of pensions between New Zealand and Britain should be thoroughly inquired into. Members stated that many of these people were charges on the Hospital Boards. They had paid into the unemployment scheme in Britain and had been persuaded to come to New Zealand under immigration schemes, hut now they were unable to secure a pension.

Hon. J. G. Cobbe said that reciprocity in pensions between New Zealand and Australia would be brought up by tlie Ministers who were visiting Australia during the Centenary celebrations. Everything that could possibly be done to establish a reciprocity scheme with Britain had been done, and every time a New Zealand Minister went to England the matter was raised. If pensions were paid to persons who liad been in New Zealand for only a short period, the money would have to be found by the taxpayer. Rt. Hon. G. AV. Forbes said that if a pension was provided for a person immediately he arrived in New Zealand there would be a great influx of new settlers.

Mr M. J. Savage said many of the people concerned had to be kept in any case; it was only a question of whether the money should be paid in the form of a rate to a hospital board or some other form of taxation that would go into the consolidated revenue. He considered an Empire scheme of reciprocity should be established. Mr AV. E. Barnard contended that the matter had not been discussed every time a Minister went to Britain, and quoted the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question the previous year, when he said that the question of reciprocity was discussed at the conference in 1930, but not when he visited London in 1932. He urged that the House should be given an opportunity next session of removing anomalies from the Pensions Act.

Mr H. T. Armstrong urged that the residential qualification should be reduced from 25 to 20 years. Mr AV. J. Jordan suggested that the Government should consider establishing a contributory scheme to cover old age, unemployment and other disabilities. Mr L. C. M. S. Amery, when he visited New Zealand, said he would raise the matter when he returned to England. Had any reply been received by the New Zealand Government as a result of that? ho asked. Mr J. O’Brien said the residential qualification should not be reduced to 20 years, as that did not go far enough, but that that, qualification should be left to the Pensions Board or a Magistrate to decide when a pension was applied for. The report was tabled.