DISCUSSION OF BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18471, 7 August 1923, Page 8

DISCUSSION OF BILL.

- QENEROUS PROVISIONS.

CRITICISM 'BY LABOUR.

'"WRIGGLE" BY GOVERNMENT

[bv telegraph.— reporter.] .' ,\%. ;,:.;. ; WELLINGTON. Monday./

la moving ; the second reading ','. of the War Pensions Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this, evening, the Minister for Defence, ; Sir R. Heaton Rhodes, said tho New Zealand pensions were more liberal and on a more generous scale than in any other part of . the British Empire. He did not . say that there was not a particular item that was not higher elsewhere. . ■ '__ The Bill proposed to make still further provision for those who were injured or dependents. It might not be sufficient, and in'course'of time there might again have to be revision. The ■ amount involved in the' Bill was £80,000. ' A member of the executive of the Returned Soldiers' Association said to him on Saturday "I like your Bill." Mr. iT., W. . Rhodes (Thames): They say they are not satisfied. . , ~ . The Minister: I know I cannot satisfy everybody. It is human nature to ask for more. ; <'.v-yi

As far as the recommendations of the commission were ■ concerned, he added, they had been given effect to except in three instances. The first was in regard to the Appeal Board, it being considered the appointment' of a Supreme Court Judge was' impracticable. The second concerned the extension of benefits to wives . and widows married after the disablement or discharge of the soldier. It was at present 'provided that the marriage must have taken place two years after discharge, or , that there was an understanding to marry prior to' that. The proposal that there should bo no time limit was not adopted. - The third point of difference was the recommendation for ' reduction of pensions in cases where the commission's'report 1 involved a decrease, not an increase. That recommendation was not given effect to,' and therefore the pensioners concerned would not be adversely affected.

Mr. Willord Supports Bill. The Leader of' the Opposition, Mr. Wilford, said he' desired to congratulate the Returned Soldiers' Association on getting some increases in pensions from, the Government. In regard to the Appeal Board, he said, the rights of appeal were limited, and he thought the Government should have given a general right of appeal from any decision. The door had not been opened quite wide enough. - He was pleased to support the second reading of the Bill, leaving himself free to vote in committee against any clause which he might consider should be amended. The Bill would not solve the problem of soldiers' pensions, for there were always cases cropping up for which no provision was made, and he would like to see a general clause, giving the Minister power to deal with these. ■

Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said he was disappointed with the Bill, which was little more than a "wriggle" on the part of the Government. Most of the clauses provided for pensions which already could be paid by the Pensions Board if it cared to do so. There was already legislation on the Statute Book by which it could increase pensions by £2 a week, but it did not do so, and would not do so. Increases Permissive. The.trouble was that the increases were permissive and not mandatory, and instead of the clause stating the board "may" grant the increases, it should bo "shall." He had consulted with members of the Returned Soldiers' Association in Wellington and other centres, and they agreed that the Bill was a "wiggle" by the Government to - avoid its just responsibilities. Regarding the Appeal Board, the dice would be loaded against the association and the interests of soldiers. The association should <be permitted to place one member on the board instead of selecting six, from whom the Minister would choose one. * The Minister for Customs,, the ; Hon. W. D. Stewart, : remarked that the somewhat bitter tone of -the last speaker's re r marks surprised him: What more generous treatment the Government could have accorded to war pensions he could not conceive. The Minister proceeded to quote from; a statement prepared by the Commissioner of Pensions comparing the existing pension rates*with the commission's proposals and the provisions of the Bill. He remarked that the onus was now on the board to find the pensioner work and so relieve the pensions vote so far as his economic pension' was concerned. This was virtually the principle of repatriation. With regard to the granting of a wide discretion to the board, this was necessary in order to ensure that a man who refused employment or lost his employment through misconduct should not benefit. The recommendation of the board regarding rates '■< of payment for different ranks would have meant reductions to certain classes of pensioners and the Government had not adopted them. Test of Eligibility. The test of eligibility for supplemen- ' tary and dependant's pensions at present was the pensioner's ability to earn. Under the new proposals it was his capacity to obtain and keep a job. The commission's report did not provide adequately for widows without children, and a special paragraph had been necessary to safeguard them. The provision for widows with children was more liberal than that recommended by the commission. The present rate for a widow with two children was £3 lis 6d a week, plus 8s 6d. The commission recommended £3 12s bd. The Bill proposed £3 12s 6d, plus 7s 6d. Similar figures were quoted for other ranks.. ■' Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) " said that so far as he could fee everything would' depend upon the way in which tho new measure was administered owing to the wide discretion given to the ""War Pensions Board. The Bill failed to provide for several classes of cases. He objected to" the, proposal that the Government should select the discharged soldiers' representative on the board fiom the candidates nominated by the Returned Soldiers' Association. , >' Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) upheld in general the provisions of the Bill.'- ' - ;:•• ■ - ' Mr. Holland's Criticism. • ■ Mr. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, complained that the Bill had been brought down hurriedly, and members had not been provided with a clear summary of its provisions, a help to which they were entitled. He knew that the value of such a measure depended almost entirely on sympathetic administration, and he had no doubt whatever that the existing legist, lation was being administered unsympathetically. He had come to this conclusion through' handling large numbers of cases. Mr. Holland strongly condemned the practice of disallowing pensions on the ground that disabilities were due to causes antedating war service. j[- : ■ ; Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) and Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) carried on the debate until past midnight. The Bill was react a second time, and the House rose. at 12.40, a.m.;/