PENSIONS BILL

Timaru Herald, Volume CVI, Issue 16355, 3 October 1917, Page 5

PENSIONS BILL

IN COMMITTEE. . , . PENSIONS FOR PARTIAL ' n DISABLEMENT. ' ,■/■■■ From- Our Own Correspondent. , • WELLINGTON, Oct. 2. The Houso wont- into committee on the War Pensions Amendment Bill. The first three clauses of the Bill were, passed last week, and Ito-day clause 4, which deals' with special provisions applicable to disabled members of the forces, wis® considered. The clause concerns the operations of the Pen- ' eiions- Board, and lays down that, where sufficient money is not being raised by a disabled member of the forces to enable him to live in ac-J cordance with the' .standard of comfort! to which he was accustomed before the war, the Board may increase the race ! of pension payable to such member by nn amount not exceeding £1 weekly. Mr Wilford pointed ou'r. that the provision was most inadequate. Ho instanced cases where mem who depended > solely upon their fingers for a. Jiving., (typists, reporters, 'musicians, etc:), j were obliged 'to accept only 25 per cent, of a full pension, whereas say a. lawyer, Kchoolmaster, or squatter,, who lost a log roceved 75 per cent, of the gross pension. Mr Wilford was supported by several members who, spoke on similar lines. Tailors, linotype operators, shearers, inechHiios, and many others were cited as men who would be ruined by the loss of two or three fingers. Sir James Allen that the Pensions Board could do better without the schedule than with it, but it had been put in alt the instance of the Second Division League., and members generally. He pointed out that machinery wais now in operation, whereby tho man who had become incapacitated could be (trained for some other work. The Attorney-General was .in charge of that department, which had any amounib of money with which, to equip disabled men for andther occupation. He stressed the point that if they made the amount £2 a week in L Rtoad olf £1 a man' who was used to receiving £3 weekly in pre-war times would bo little better off, but if ho were taught another occupation he TOBtild bo in a better position than if ho relied on the pension. He emphasised thnlt ho had never wamted a hard and fast schedule. He could nob himself move to increase tho amount for such partial disablements, as had' been

suggested, buto the arguments of members appealed to him, and he would submit the matter to Cabinet"with a view ito having the maximum amount increased or havings a special clause inserted to meot the cases meritioued. Mr Poland wanted to know how the 80,000 men who had already gone away were going to gelt on. They wero- situated in just the same manner as the Second Division men so far as" loss of fingers was concerned. Sir James Allen mentioned that amendment would bo moved Ito provide that in no caso could the. , Pensions Board award less than was> specified ir the schedule,' bnt th'ey might alb their discretion increase the amount. Mr Wilford said he was convinced that members of 'the House favour of increasing the amount payable to partially disabled member's from £1 to £2., He moved an amendment..in tha'b direction. Mr Hindmarsh challenged the wisdom of discrimination in nensions between rich and poor. He contended that the difference in food, raiment, and general environment before the war should have no bearing on pensions. :Sir James Allen said that Mr Hind- : marsh had. touched the spot. -* ,■ i ■ Mr Hindmarsh: Hear, hear. ' j ■ Sir James Allen: But it was done deliberately. . What Mr Wilford propos-" cd to-do would not help the poor man one, scrap. It would help "the rich lich man only. He wanted to know where thay were going to stop in the matter of pensions. Did the House want-the £IOOO a year man to get his pre-war rates? Members: No. Mr Poland exhorted members not to listen to the Minister, who was trying to side-track the House. 'Ho"believed that the minimum pension for a totally incapacitated man should be £3 a week,, and for a partially disabled man in. proportion. ' Sir James Allen asked the House not to push the Government too far and so jeopardise the suggestion he had made. The only person who would receive any benefit from Mr Wilford's amendment would be the single man who was earning £4 a week. A married man earning less would receive no benefit whatever, but a man who had earned £5 or £lO a week would benefit. A division was taken on Mr Wilford's amendment, which was.lost by three vrtes. For' the amendment (30) —Anstey, Bro>\n, liuddo, Craigic, Dickie, Ell T. -A. H Field, Fletcher. Forces' ( Glover, Huidmarsh, Hm-nsbv. Isitt, Lee, McCombs, A. K. Newman,

Ngata, Parr, Payne, Poland, Poole, 11. W. Smith, Statham. Sykes, Talbot, Thacker, Veitch,, "Walker, Wilford, Witty; Against the amendment (33; —Allen, Anderson, Bollard. J. M. Dickson. J. S. Dickson,' W. H. Field, Fraser. Cuithrie, Hanan, Harris, | Henare, Herdman, Herries, Hudson, ! Hunter, Jennings, Mac Donald, Mander, Massey ; Myers, E. Newman, I Nosworthv. Okey, Pearce, Pomare, IK. H. Phodes, W. E.hodes, Russell, G. H. Smith. Ward, Wilkinson. Wright, Young. To clause 10 the Minister moved an amendment providing for. payment of £1 a week ,'in place of ,10s for a pensioner who is obliged to' undergo medical treatment. The amendment was carried on the voices." ■' Cla.usp 10, which provided for plac- | ing a widow who was dependent on her I son on.the same level as the widow of ! a deceased soldier, excited some discussion. Several members pointed out that many New Zealanders who had wives and children in this country had, through their excessive patriotism, proceeded beyond these shores and joined other forces, although their business and domiciles were situated in this country. Those men would not come under the scope of the present proposals and their families would suffer. Sir James Allen replied that .the Bill did not provide for men who hadgone abroad to enlist. By their, action they had forced on the calling up of the Second Division. They shoud have awaited their call in this country. Clause 10 was-passed. An amendment moved by the Minister providing for 15s a week instead of 10s as the rate of pension for a widow where' it was shown■; that her standard i of comfort was affected, was agreed to, [ and the maximum amount payable was raised from £& to £4 a week. At clause 15 objection was taken to the provisions excluding a member of the Forces from pensions where it wa.s proved that his wounds were selfinflicted. Sir James Allen stated that it had' been proved that several members of the Forces had ,deliboratelv contracted venereal disease so that they should not have to go' to the Front. Surely these men were not entitled to consideration.