Disabled Ex-Soldiers May Be Given Work

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 759, 4 September 1929, Page 7

Disabled Ex-Soldiers May Be Given Work

COMMISSION SET UP ECONOMIC-PENSION PROBLEM (TBS SUN'S Parliamentary Reverter.) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Tuesday. A commission will shortly be set up to consider the best means of providing work for the partiallydisabled returned soldiers to enable them to do without the economic pension. That was an announcement made in the House this evening by the Minister of Defence, the Hon. T. M. Wilford, during the course of his Budget speech. The Minister said that such employment would give men a new interest in life, and would enable them to earn a little more money. The commission will sit in the four main centres. The object of the Government, said the Minister, was to try to do away with the economic pension and to provide work for men, at the same time enabling them perhaps to earn a little more and gain some hope in life that they were doing something. That also was the aim of the Returned Soldiers’ Association, National War Funds Council, Canteen Fund Board, and Red Cross. New' Zealand paid between £30,000 and £90,000 a year in economic pensions. CONSTITUTION OF COMMISSION Representations had been made for a commission to go into the whole question, and these the Minister had placed before Cabinet, which had agreed to a commission being set up at once. It would consist of a magistrate and two representatives, one for the Returned Soldiers’ Association and the Canteen Funds Board and the other for the National War Funds Council and Red Cross. The commission would sit at the four centres and the R.S.A. would be notified at once to get ready with evidence. As soon as the order of reference could be agreed upon between the Minister and the parties concerned, the commission would function. The funds of the National War Funds Council, Canteen Funds Board, and Red Cross would all be consid ered in relation to the scheme. Canteen funds at present amounted to £200,000 and produced an annual income of £IO,OOO in local-body and Government bonds and easily realisable securities. NO EVASION OF RESPONSIBILITY The Minister did not want to suggest that the commission was to be set up to relieve the Government of any of its responsibilities. Undoubtedly the result of the commtssiou would be that fewer economic pensions would be payable. “I say here to the returned soldiers of New Zealand.” said the Minister, "that every penny saved to the Government w'ill be considered in relation to other moves this Government intends to make toward other pensioners who do not come within the scope of the commission.” Mr. A. M. Samuel (Thames): Will the order of reference cover attributability ? The Minister said that he had yet. to discuss the scope of the inquiry, but it was not his idea that the question of attributability would be incorporated this session. There should be removed from the Statute Book the blot there regarding blind soldiers. “I knew that directly such a Bill appeared before the House,” he said, ”thal the Minister in Charge would be subjected to all kinds of suggestions, and X know how difficult it is to get a one-clause Bill through the House, but I have before me an amend menr. I have drafted providing that the War Pensions Board, in determining the rate of pension payable to any child or a member of the forces in receipt of a pension for total blindness, shall not take into consideration the property or income from any source of the pensioner or his wife or children. That will cover the whole thing.”

FAMILY PHYSICIAN’S EVIDENCE Regarding attributability Mr. Wilford said that tho figures he had taken out showed that since 1923, out of 2,589 appeals, 45 per cent, had succeeded. He had noticed for the current year that the percentage had risen to 59 per cent. Mr. Wilford said that he realised now difficult it was to prove attributability. His idea for overcoming some of the trouble was to have the regulations altered to enable the family doctor to be brought lu. It would be a distinct help and make a great difference if the evidence of the family physician were available. Regarding the fact that the Minister could not deal with cases after they had been considered by the Appeal Board, Mr. Wilford did not knfw whether the House would be prepared to entrust the Minister of Defence with a certain amount of discretionary power in that respect. At present it was no use a member approaching the Minister regarding a case after it had gone to the Appeal Board. He had no power. Why should he not? Mr. Wilford saw no reason why an amendment to the law should not be made to that effect.