PENSIONS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19940, 26 October 1934, Page 8

PENSIONS

RECIPROCITY WITH BRITAIN

INQUIRY SUGGESTED

By Telegraph —Press Association

WELLINGTON, October 25.

A discussion on the question of providing pensions for elderly people who have not the residential qualification for the old age pension, took place In the House to-day. The Public Petitions Committee recommended that the matter of reciprocity pensions between New Zealand and Britain should be thoroughly inquired into. Members stated that many of these Deople were charges on hospital boards. They had paid into the unemployment scheme in Britain but had been persuaded to come to New Zealand under the immigration schemes, and were now unable to secure a pension. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe said that recinrocity pensions between New Zealand and Australia would be brought up by the Ministers who would be visiting Australia during the centenary celebrations. Everything that could possiblv be done to establish a reciprocity scheme with Britain had been done. Every time a New Zealand Minister went to England the matter was raised. If a pension was paid to persons who had been in New Zealand only a short period the money would have to be found by the taxpayer. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that if a pension was provided for a person immediately he arrived in New Zealand there would be a great influx of new settlers.

Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said that many of the people concerned had to be kept in any case. It was only a question of whether the money should be paid in the form of a rate to the hospital board or some other form of taxation that would go into the Consolidated Revenue. He considered that an Empire scheme of reciprocity should be established.

Mr W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) contended that the matter had not been discussed every time a Minister went to Britain. He quoted the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question the previous year when he said the question of reciprocity was discussed at the Conference in 1930, but not when he visited London in 1932. He urged that the House should be given an opportunity next session of removing anomalies from the Pensions Act. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) urged that the residential qualification should be reduced from 25 to 20 years. Mr W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) suggested that the Government should consider establishing a contributory scheme to cover old age, unemployment and other disabilities. Mr L. C. S. Amery when he visited New Zealand said that he would raise the matter when he returned to England. Had any reply been received by the New Zealand Government as a result of that? he asked. Mr J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland), said that the residential qualification should not be reduced to 20 years as that did not go far enough, but that the qualification should be left to the Pensions Board or Magistrate to decide -when a pension was applied for. The report was tabled.