SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19792, 12 November 1927, Page 13

SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.

DEALING WITH APPEALS. COMMITTEE'S POSITION. THE BOARD THE BEST JUDGE. [BV telegraph.—special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Friday. The position in which the Defence Committee of the House of Bepresentatives finds itself with regard to petitions from soldiers for pensions was mentioned by the Minister of Defence, Hon. F. J. Rolleston, in the House to-day, when the committee reported against a claim to further aid on the ground that the petitioner's trouble was not the result of war service. "I think it must be obvious," said the Minister, "that it is quite impossible for the Defence Committee to examine details of cases with the same completeness as a

properly-constituted appeal board, which has the medical evidence before it."

Was the committee to act as another court of appeal from the Pensions Appeal Board ? he asked. In the present case the Appeal L'oard had decided that the disability was not attributable to war service. He suggested it was quite impos-

sible in the present and similar cases dealt with by a recognised tribunal for the committee to recommend that the decision of the Appeal Board be reversed. Even if thp committee made a favourable recommendation it would be hard for the Government to act upon it since a precedent would be established, and all would approach Parliament for similar treatment. The Government did not want to deal harshly with cases of that kind, but pensions had to be granted through recognised tribunals. Every facility, however,

would be given for having cases heard. * In the case consideration sympathetic members had urged that the Defence Committee should have given favourable consideration to the claim. Mr. R. M. Campbell (Havvke's Bay) said the petitioner's case was a hard ono. and he regretted the committee had not been able to give it fair treatment. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palinerston) said he had known the man in hi 3 own town, and could say that his case was a very sad one indeed. He was now reduced t« seeking charitable aid. His case was peculiar, in that one day ho would be in perfect health and the next day he would be able to do no work at all. Mr. J A. Lee (Auckland East) said the Pensions Board was a good board, but it had to reject many cases, and every chance was given petitioners. There was one instance in which 54 medical men had testified against the case of a man, yet the board had reconsidered it. He did not succeed. ' "I do not know whether he is still petitioning." said Mr Lee. Mr. W. S. Glenn (Kangitikei), a member of the committee, said he had never seen one case in which there was doubt in which the committee had not given the petitioner the benefit of the doubt. Mr. V. H. Potter (Roskill), chairman of the committee, said every consideration had been given iri the present case, in which the man was suffering from neurasthenia. The medical evidence was that he was suffering at times from a slight disability He was now working. The Appeal Board, on medical evidence, decided that he should not receive a further pension, and they had their reasons. The disability was not ( rented by war service. The committee very often did not wish to give w as for rejecting petitions. There bod been «i recent ease in which they made no comment The man had been a deserter. They did not mention that, because if would have been a sligmn on that petitioner.