The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1917. THE PENSIONS DIFFICULTY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9789, 12 October 1917, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1917. THE PENSIONS DIFFICULTY

The amendment to the third reading of the Pensions Bill proposed by the ■member fox Napier was a shrewd venture into a region of much difficult}'. The hill was a policy bill, and the amendment traversed its main provisions. The carrying of the amendment would have compelled the Government ■to consider its position. That w'ould have been a great difficulty for the Government. It would have been a difficulty for the House, too, because the present crisis of war finance is, for obvious reasons, not an ideal opportunity for a change of Government. For that reason the amendment, if pressed, would bav© put members info the difficulty of deciding between the Government and the principle of the amendment with which many of them are in sympathy. These were ready, if we can judge by the speech of the member for Hurunui, to postpone the question of the principle of the amendment—that the pensions for the widows and soldiers are inadequate—in order to give the Government time to consider fully the new financial position whioh has arisen. It is a difficulty which could not arise under the party system. But the party system has been suspended by mutual agreement. The suspension has not, however, put an end to the play of political considerations. Inasmuch as the suspension was understood all round as not affecting the responsibility of the Coalition Government to the House, ■whioh is a political matter, the suspension of party merely limited political considerations which can never bo eliminated without giving dictatorial power to Governments. Under ■the circumstances which have arisen the decision of individual members would have been subjected to political criticism—to unfair criticism. That does not cover the whole region of the difficulty. The remaining difficulty of the situation affected the bill. The bill might easily have been endangered. If it had been lost, as it would have been by the carrying of the ■amendment, the improvement of the pensions offered by it would have been lost. •. Theoretically it can be urgeci that a change of Government would have led to another and a more generous measure. Practically at the present stage of the session, and in riew of the difficulties of the financial position, that theoretical argument would not have held water. On the whole, the mover of the amendment, who had bad the subject very well ventilated, did the vise thing in withdrawing it. Any attempt to improve the pension provisions just now stands blocked by the new War Budget. Pension amendments must depend on loan money, nr>d the very large call on that source of finance has been suddenly increased. It has been increased, moreover, in a manner which, has not been easy for the public to understand as thoroughly as is necessary, all things considered. The members who attended what, but for the absence of a few', might be called a secret session of the House, bin can only be regarded as a double caucus, seem to have had information put before them for their guidance in this matter. And that circumstance probably accounted for the attitude of many. The broad lines of the position are, however, unmistakable if w'e accept the latest war figures put before the House and explained by the Prime Minister. In the Budget the Minister spoke of the increasing expenses of the war. warning the House that the cost might run up to fifty millions. The new figures have established an estimate of thirty-six millions to the end of next September. If the war extends a year beyond that —till September 30th, 1919—and the estimate of two millions a month is not exceeded, the additional cost will be twenty-four millions, which will bring the total up to sixty millions. This is ten millions more than the fifty millions of the Budget, and there is the cost to consider (and bring into the account) of the period before the period of eighteen months which will end on September 39th, 1918. There is no need for either panic or pessimism. But the large loom of millions is a sufficient reason for the close and careful consideration of prudent men. The bill betters the provision substantially. The foot facilitates the postponement of further betterment for better consideration.

The reference to the general question of finance in the House on the occasion of the Finance Minister’s explanation showed the necessity lor this careful consideration. The Minister replied to interjectory suggestions an'd' creations by showing the

difficulties of the income tax anti of the graduated land tax, and or various other forms of taxation. These he seemed to consider great enough to support the conclusion that for revenue purposes pure and simple there is nothing so reliable as the Customs, even including duties on the necessaries of life. Now', in war the one purpose is revenue. It is not a time to talk of indirect objectives, even such as facilitation of settlement —our greatest need and our greatest growing need. These require time to effect their objects, and their approach to success increases their failure- as revenue producers. In war such talk, let it be said without any derogation to the principle:, involved, is a _ mere suggestion of shibboleths without meaning. A certain amount of money is wanted from revenue, and must be got, of course, with absolute fairness of incidence, but without any disturbance of ulterior views. “Money, money, and more money”—that is the motto for the financial flag that flics in war. But does the prudent man look in troubled times only to bis sources of revenue? The . prpdent man is ready to pay what is necessary : but ho always likes to make sure of the necessity. Is the whole of this war expenditure necessary ? That is the very point which we tear has remained in the background. There is reason to believe that without advancing from that position it is becoming conspicuous. What else can one think in view of the Ministerial explanation that one department finds the money without question tor another department to pay? " e would press our suggestion of yesterclav for investigation into thi s position. The Prime Minister lias saved us the necessity by stating his readiness to appoint a Parliamentary Committee to do the work. Me can only applaud the conclusion, and hope thax the committee will be set up qumkly and get to work promptly. Moreover, if necessary, a R<>y al Co “ tt sion would be useful. After such investigation, the way to , consider th betterment of the pension system and the ways and means of providing it will be clearer and easier.