THE ECONOMY COMMISSION’S REPORT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21601, 23 March 1932, Page 13

THE ECONOMY COMMISSION’S REPORT

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —I would like to protest,, against cutting down of disabled soldiers’ and oldage pensions as advised by the Economy Commission. I think it will place a great stain on New Zealand history if such a recommendation is adopted. Surely the pioneers who made the country and the disabled soldiers who fought and bled for it will be allowed to live or exist till they are called across the border. I hope all returned soldiers’ associations and ex-sol-diers will strongly protest against the infliction of this injustice on their disabled comrades gnd old-age pensioners.—I am, etc., Ex-digger. Roxburgh, March 21. TO THE EDITOR Sir, —I have read and digested (not without considerable pain) the Economy Commission’s report, and I must say that never in my knowledge of our little country, extending over a great number of years, has such an unfeeling document been brought before the eyes of the public. The slogan of the commission seems to have been “ Down with the workers and the helpless in our midst.” According to its version of things, the poor old-age pensioner must tighten up bis belt and say nothing—possibly his tobacco will have to go. Moreover, the widow’s mite must be reduced in order to bring our country back to normal. Probably she has a few growing children, some of whom are ready for work with no work to be had. Is not her lot hard enough already? But the commission says the sacrifices must be evenly divided. Then our disabled soldiers are asked to take their fair share of the burden. My memory being very alert, I can remember the profound promises made to our brave lads on their going forth to do their duty. They were promised that should they be killed their dependents should never want, and wore they to return unfit for this life’s battle, nothing would be spared in order that their lot should be comfortable. What is the result? Directly the country feels a financial strain the disabled soldier’s economic pension receives a cut. Now it is not only suggested that the economic pension should be cut in half this year and abolished altogether next year, but that the pension of disabled soldiers’ dependents should be cut to the tune of 10 per cent. So much for our fair country’s promises of 18 yeans ago! Our boys spent some of the most precious years of their lives in their country’s interests. Why should they be asked to make payment all over again by having to bear the burden pf financial as well as physical blight?.

If another war broke out, I suppose “ We’ll look after you ” would be sung just as lustily as formerly. The irony of it! Anzac Day is once more drawing near. Our undying homage will be paid to our brave departed lads (oft-times I think they are so much better off) and the usual empty speeches will be made about remembering those who are left behind, still suffering from the war curse. I wonder if the members of the Economy Commission will take part in these proceedings. It would be interesting to know. I wonder that the public does not rise up in a body and protest in a loud voice against the attempt to cut down the pensions. Later on, perhaps, when the cost of living has been sufficiently lowered, no suffering would be felt; but I suggest that in the meantime Parliament should concentrate on salaries of £lO, £l2, and £ls a week and over. The unemployed are expected to keep the wolf from the door on £2 10s a week and less. Surely some ,of these largesalaried men could rub along on £7, £B, or £9 a week and make a sacrifice for their country in order to balance the Budget. I think the saving thus effected would go a much longer way to the attainment of that end than cuts from the pensions of the poor would. —I am, etc., Remembrance. ' Ranfurly, March 22. 1