The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1897. OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Opunake Times, Volume VII, Issue 339, 7 December 1897, Page 2

The Opunake Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1897. OLD AGE PENSIONS.

After a very lengthy course in Parliament the Old Age Pension Bill was read a third time on Friday, so that it has passed as far as the Lower House is concerned. A great number of amendments were made to it in its passage through committee so that it is very unlike the measure it was when first introduced. It has yet to run the gauntlet of the Upper House and its passing there is not such a certainty. The members of that Chamber have no constituents to face, and can therefore afford to dispense with sentimentality and playing to the “ gods.” If we hark back a few years we find that at one time in the colony there was a great howl raised against a young colony like this following in the footsteps of the Mother Country, and tying a pension millstone round the neck of the people, and pensions as a right were, to all intents and purposes, knocked ou the head. Now no individual pension or retiring allowance can be paid until submitted to the General Assembly inParliament assembled. Prior to this becoming law every civil servant was entitled to a pension after serving for a specified number of years and it was becoming apparent from the host of civil servants with which the country was being flooded owing to the cumbersome system of Governmeut we, in our wisdom, had adopted that the pension fund would sap the vitality of the colony. Taxpayers outside the civil service asked the pertinent question why should they, out of their earnings, have to provide for themselves in their own old age by their own efforts and at the same time pay taxes to find pensions for others who, whilst in good billets, had neglected to put by for a rainy day. It was argued on behalf of those in the employ of the Government that the cases were not analogous because those employed by the Government were debarred from engaging in any outside business which would enable them to supplement their incomes and thus make provision for old age whilst the salaries paid them were only sufficient in the great majority of cases to keep body and soul in partnership. However, the wave of economy and selfreliance at that time was not to be be stayed, and the principle of pensions was swept away by it. A man may serve as a postmaster, telegraphist, customs official, schoolmaster, policeman, or in any other capacity until he is too old to be continued in the service when he has in the natural —sometimes political—order of things to make room for a younger man, but though not fit at that, time to enter on any other mode of obtaining a living, he cannot lay claim to an annuity from the State to provide him against want in his declining years. With this principle we to a certain extent agree, because we do not compel any man to become a civil servant, and if he selects that form of getting a living he should abide by it and before he joins assure himself that there is no other avenue for exercising his abilities in which he can make better or more profitable use of them. ,Ou the other hand if it is necessary for the good Governmeut of the State that no civil servant should be allowed to dabble in other matters, then they should be paid a sufficient salary to enable them to make provision for themselves in old age. It is generally conceded that no person must be allowed to want, and our charitable aid system was organised to provide against such a contingency. This system is supported by u direct charge ou property supplemented by subsidy from the consolidated revenue, which was considered an equitable adjustment of the burden. An agitation has been lately organised to alter this so as to do away with the charge made by local bodies for the purpose and make charitable aid a rate solely on the consolidated revenue. If this were carried out it would mean that the working classes who contribute the largest share of the revenue would have to bear the principal strain of providing charitable aid. Charitable aid in its present form is said by those competent to offer an opinion, to be debasing the people and inducing an army of paupers. That it is unfair in its administration many instances crop up continually to prove. We have known cases of people contributing for years by payment of rates to support the charitable aid boards and then when they have come to need its aid are treated as if they had no right to assistance, but are made to pay for what benefit they obtain. Their previous payments were not looked on as contributions to any fund upon which they could draw in their day of need. If a man joins a Friendly Society and falls ill he receives assistance from his

lodge whether he be rich or poor and does not look on such assistance as charity, because he is a contributor and claims it as his right. So we contend it should be in the matter of paying rates to the local bodies for the Charitable Aid Board, those who contribute should have in return certain defined rights which they could claim, even if their payments were made a little heavier in order to ensure them. We quite agree that it would be a nice thing for every man to be able to look forward at a given age to receiving a pension or annuity which would place him in his declining years beyond the pale of want, but if that right is to be given him out of the public purse it is charity pure and simple, and the receiver of it is a State manufactured pauper. This is repugnat to the feedings of every man possessed of any independence of spirit. We think that the scheme propounded by the late Major Atkinson, who was not one of your sham philanthropists, providing for compulsory insurance was what the country wanted. It combined provision in event of the death of the bread winner, assistance in case of sickness on lines somewhat similar to Friendly Societies, and an old age pension scheme, but it also provided that every one should contribute to provide the fund. This latter provision proved too much for the people, and such cries were raised as “ interfering with the liberty of the British subject,” “ looking on the people as children who wanted nursing,” &c., but if compelling the thrifty to provide pensions for those who are unthrifty, or who are unfortunate is not interfering with the British subject we do uot know what would be. It is truly said that no man however wealthy he may be to-day can forsee whether or not he will be in want of a State pension when he reaches 65. This we admit, but why should he not place in the hands of the State out of his present wealth a sum sufficient to provide that pension wedonotsee. Let him be compelled to contribute as a right and then at G 5 receive his pension as a right. Again, it is said of the working man, who spends as ho receives, that he generally spends a great part of his wages in drink and thus contributes very heavily to the revenue and thereby acquires a right to a refund out of the revenue when he is no longer able to earn. We no uot suppose any man drinks a glass of liquor for the philanthropic object of helping the revenue or the country, although we have seen men accept a “ liquor ” on the sentimental argument being paraded that he surely would not take a shingle off the house. Assuming a working man, who spends his spare cash in drink, consumes tweuty whiskies in a week, and that the price for each whisky is represented by two pence for whisky and four pence for duty, we feel pretty certain that if he had to go to the post office and purchase two fourpenny duty tickets, with which, and fourpence added, he could shout for a friend, the price of the two tickets to go to the pension fund, he would see the Government busted first before he would shout those two whiskies and would at once begin to talk of interference with the rights of the British subject. In order to provide a pension fund every one should be made to contribute cut of his wealth or earnings for the purpose. The commissioner of the Government Insurance Department supplied the Premier with a return showing that on a three per cent basis a young man of 18 would need to pay £1 11s per year till he was 65 to then entitle him to a pension of £26. Under this he would pay in £72 17s, a sum equal to less than three years pension and and we do not think there is any young man in the colony who could not afford to pay that sum, which would encourage a spirit of independence in him, instead of educating and encouraging him by the present method of looking forward to depending on the State for chanty. Possibly a lump sum of £BS would produce the same benefit.