The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1932. A POINT OF HONOUR

Southland Times, Issue 21820, 24 September 1932, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1932. A POINT OF HONOUR

The point raised by Mr Samuel in connection with miners’ widows’ pensions is of such impotance that it should not be permitted to remain undetermined. When the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill was before the House last session there was a heavy battle in committee over the clauses dealing with pensions, and there is evidence in the division lists that dissatisfaction existed among some of the supporters of the Government. The Bill altered the pensions for miners’ widows by restricting them to two years, instead of life, and by limiting pensions which had been existent foi' eighteen months or more to a further* six months. These clauses were carried by narrow majorities, and when the third reading of the Bill was put to the House the opposition to the measure had dwindled. In the debate on the third reading Mr Samuel referred to the pensions of miners’ widows in very definite terms: I want to show that the Government was very much perturbed over this clause, because after the plea had been made for the retention of the pension—the only one it was proposed to actually abolish—the Minister of Public Works, who was in charge of the Bill at the time, stated to the House that if the clause were allowed to go through he would introduce legislation next session to re-establish what the Bill proposed to do away with. Those were the words of the right honourable gentleman and I sincerely trust that the promise—because I regarded it as a definite promise—will be given effect to. I venture to say that if the promise had not been made the Government would have been defeated on the clause. There are several honourable members who voted with the Government on the definite understanding that the promise would be carried out.

The majority for the clause was eleven. There can be no doubt about tile effect of Mr Samuel’s words, and it should be noted that neither the Prime Minister nor Mr Coates made any effort to question the accuracy of his statement. Mr Forbes now says that no promise to bring down legislation immediately to restore these pensions was made. Mr Samuel’s interpretation of the promise was that the legislation was to be introduced in the “next session.” It should be an easy matter to determine whether or not such an undertaking was given. If Mr Samuel is right the Government can pursue only one course —it must honour the promise made on its behalf by the Minister who was leading the House at the time. This conflict is too direct to be ignored, since it involves a charge that a solemn undertaking has been betrayed and that the Government will not honour commitments made in its name. Mr Coates can clear the matter up and he should do so without delay.