FEDERAL PENSIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22100, 2 November 1933, Page 11

FEDERAL PENSIONS

GOVERNMENT’S FIRM STAND.

(From Ode Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, October 19.

Towards the end of last week it appeared as though a crisis would develop in the Federal Parliament which would cause the Government to go to the electors almost immediately. The position arose through a proposal by the leader of the Country Party (Dr Earle Page) that the property provisions of the Pensions Act should be liberalised. It was estimated that the coat of the concession would be £500,000, and in view of the sacrifices of revenue already decided upon the Government could not see its way to accede to the request that had been made. The Federal Labour Party, anxious for an early election in the vain hope that there would be the customary swing of the pendulum, was quick to size up the position and threw its weight behind the leader of the Country Party. It was claimed that if the issue went to the vote the Government would be in a minority of six. However, the Cabinet was not to be stampeded, and so soon as this became apparent there was talk of a compromise. Now the possibility of even a compromise is vanishing, for there are very few members of the House of Eepresentatitves anxious for an election.

In view of what has happened it ia interesting to study the way in which the pension bill has grown in recent years. It is not difficult to understand then why the Federal Cabinet should resist any proposals that would make the burden greater. In 1924-25 the Commonwealth revenue was £68,000,000. The old age and invalid pension bill was £7,000,000, or 10.3 per cent. The present Budget provides for a total Commonwealth revenue of £60,500,000 and for pension payments amounting to £11,250,000, or 17 per cent. Therefore, while the revenue lias declined by £1,500,000 the cost of pensions has increased by more than 50 per cent. Living costs are now well below the 1921 level, and, after making allowance for increased population, the effective .pension to-day is higher than it was. say, 10 years ago. At present the property of a deceased pensioner above £SO in value is liable for the amount of pension paid during the pensioner’s lifetime. This provision has caused many thousands of pensioners in comfortable circumstances to surrender their pensions rather than encumber their property. About 12,000 pensions have been surrendered in such ciicumstances and an unknown number ot people owning property have refrained from applying for pensions. Now Dr Page proposes to increase the exemption to £OOO. It ia felt that if he suci ceeded he would add greatly to the number of pensioners in Australia.