RETURNED MEN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23599, 8 September 1938, Page 12

RETURNED MEN

CRITICISM OF PROPOSALS CASE FOR DIFFERENTIATION EXPLANATION BY MR NASH ANOMALIES TO BE REMOVED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Sept. 7. The position of returned soldiers under the Social Security Bill was debated at length ir the House of Representatives this evening during consideration of the Bill in committee Opposition members contended that the returned soldier would be given no greater benefits than my other citizen, and might be worse off than he was under the present legislation. The debate became acrimonious at times, and there were many arguments among members over interjections. Mr J. A. Hoy (Opposition, Clutha) suggested that a lowering of the age limit for returned soldiers, perhaps by five years, would be a recognition of their service overseas.

The Bill gave an advantage of five years already, said the Minister of Finance (Mr Nash), in that the qualifying age for a pension was reduced for everybody by five years. Returned soldiers therefore received the advantage of five years. Provision would be made in the Finance Bill which would probably come down to-morrow to remove anomalies. A Higher Maximum Mr J. A. Lee (Govt., Grey Lynn) said that the Bill proposed to do more for the returned soldiers than any legislation had done previously. When the Bill became law a returned soldier and his wife would receive a maximum of 77s 6d a week with free medical attention against the present maximum of 52s 6d without medical attention. “ That is an improvement of 25s a week, yet the Nationalist poison gas factories are turning out anonymous letters to the papers condemning these provisions of the Bill.” he said.

Mr W. J. Lyon (Govt., Waitemata) said that the first man who should be helped was the returned man in poor circumstances who was breaking down in health, and not the man with enough money to keep going. The returned men themselves would insist on this.

There should be .some means by which the returned soldier could get a pension before other members of the community, said Mr J. Hargest (Opposition, Awarua). He would be very sorry to see the Bill give rise to class prejudice by making a distinction between the incomes of different classes of returned men. They all deserved some consideration above that given to the rest of the community. Mr H. M. Christie (Govt, Waipawa) said that the Bill did not, take anything away from the war pensioner that he had at present, and, in fact, gave him more. There had been complaints about men “ burned out ” by war service not being passed for pensions, but the doctors were reasonable to-day and clearly recognised that some men broke down in health not from any specific cause, but from the results of war service. Plea for Liberality Mr J, G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara) said that there could be no distinction between men who had served for longer or shorter periods. The Bill should provide at least the amounts provided by the pensions of to-day and should liberalise the income qualifications. Many returned men now found that it paid them better at the age of 65 to receive a pension under thd civil oldage pensions legislation than to rely on the war veteran’s allowance for which a lower income was allowed. “ This Bill should liberalise returned soldiers’ income allowances.” Mr Coates said. “At present it gives the returned soldier no more than every other citizen is able to receive. The returned men themselves have asked that the income maximum should be raised and that they should still be allowed to take the war veterans’ allowance.” The Minister said that any soldier, if he were in a state of health to justify it, could claim the ordinary benefits under the Bill and was well protected He could, for instance, qualify for the invalidity, emergency, or unemployment benefits irrespective of his age as other citizens could Returned soldiers had been in mind when the Bill was drafted and it afforded complete protection.

Mr Coates; I can’t help thinking that the object is to absorb all returned soldiers’ benefits into the Bill as far as possible. " That is not so,” Mr Nash replied. “A Bill will come before the House to-morrow which will deal with tho War Pensions Board and will not bring it under this Bill.” ■ Provident Fund Beneficiaries Mr Nash gave an assurance that the Bill would not reduce the benefits already payable to persons who were contributors to the Na? tional Provident Fund or to funds established by friendly societies. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr A Hamilton) said it had been stated that the Bill would not affect certain superannuation funds, such as those of the National Provident Fund and certain friendly societies. He would like to know what effect the operation of the Bill would have on the National Provident Fund, for instance.

“ This measure will not reduce the benefits of those who are contributors to the National Provident Fund,” Mr Nash replied. “ While there may be some who will prefer benefits to be gained by other means, I think those in the Bill are at least as good as anything else available. The Bill is certainly likely to affect new membership of the National Provident Fund because nothing else that can be obtained is equal to the benefits under the Bill. Mr Hamilton; The people generally take what gives them the best results.

“ Well, there is nothing that will return benefits equal to those in the Bill,” the Minister replied.