“THE TE PUKE TIMES” TUESDAY, APRIL 11. 1939 OLD AGE PENSIONS

Te Puke Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 26, 11 April 1939, Page 4

“THE TE PUKE TIMES” TUESDAY, APRIL 11. 1939 OLD AGE PENSIONS

Recently the 8.8. C. broadcast a political debate which had special interest for Australians and New Zealanders because in Old Age Pensions,' the subject under discussion, they set an example, not followed in England until a number of years have passed. In this branch of social service New Zealand was the pioneer, having passed the first Old Age Pensions Act in 1898. New South Wales followed suit in 1900, Sir William Lyne, the Premier, frankly admitting that he had copied New Zealand, and the Act came into force in 1901. Victoria a little later also introduced legislation rather feebly embodying the principle of pensions for old age, Queensland passed a Pensions Act in 1908, and in the same year the State Acts were superseded by the Commonwealth Invalid and Old Age Pensions Act, which provided for the payment of old age pensions throughout Australia. A little later, inspired by the example[frorn overseas, Mr Asquith's Government, with Mr Lloyd George as the moving spirit, gave pensions to old people in England for the first time, but on conditions less generous as to money and pensionable age than those operating in Australia and New Zealand. Since then the gap has grown wider for while the maximum pension in England is 10s. a week on which no man or woman can live, except miserably if at all, in Australia and New Zealand it is £l a week. In Australia a single person is now allowed other sources of income, bringing the total up to £B2 a year, without deduction from the pension, and in New Zealand we believe, the total yearly income a person in receipt of full pension may enjoy is £llO. Under the Social Security Act, which came into force in New Zealand this month, and confers numerous other benefits on young and old, the pensions will be increased by 50 per cent., becoming 30s. a week payable at the age ot 60. Naturally enough in a debate upon old age pensions, New Zealand, as the originator of them, could not escape mention. The Labour M.P., Sir Charles Edwards, and the Liberal, Mr Graham White, held up New Zealand’s example as one to be studied and as far as possible to be followed here. The comment made upon this by the Conservative protagonist, Sir Arnold Wilson, was typical nf an attitude toward New Zealand very prevalent here, and doing as little justice to that country as to the reputation of its critics for fairness or clear thought. Sir Charles was quite polite to Mr Savage and his colleagues for the Social Security scheme, commending their largeheartedness. One gathered from his tone, however, that he believed they had undertaken something

beyond the scope of New Zealand’s resources, which remains to be seen. ."He said that New Zealand being a small country, its example was of little value to Britain, and that it was dependent upon this country. We do not remember the exact words, but their implication was that but for Great Britian, New Zealand could not make better provision for its aged people than the miserable pittances accorded to the aged in Great Britain. It is true that New Zealand and the rest of Empire are largely dependent upon the United Kingdon for their defence. But it is also true that the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly dependent in this respect upon the sister nations of the Empire, which supply the Mother Country with food and raw materials difficult to obtain from neutrals —if there are any—in time of war, not to mention naval bases and ships, and armies to fight by the side of her own. It is also true that Britain is the largest market for the New Zealand produce at the present time, and derives much of its wealth by its sale. But on the other hand, it must be remem-, bored that Britain takes an annual toll of ten million pounds worth of that produce for which New Zealand receives no present return. It is interest on debt .incurred here long ago, and New Zealand honourably pays it and intends to pay it regularly. Nevertheless it is a fact that at the present time New Zealand is the poorer for having to ship ten million pounds worth of her produce oversea, without getting any wealth in exchange for it to meet the needs of New Zealand people to-day. Nothing that Britain is doing now, or has done in the past, is helping New Zealand to maintain its people to an extent that freedom from necessity to produce ten million pounds worth of butter and meat which she may not sell or use herself would most undoubtedly do.

It is somewhat strange also, but true, we think nevertheless, that Britain’s receipt of New Zealand’s butter and meat to foot an interest bill does not help Britain to put a man of her two million unemployed back to work. The. loans when they were made to New Zealand in the shape of locomotives, rails, machinery and other manufactured goods, employed many men in factories here. They get little employment from the interest in the form of meat and dairy produce which the loans are earning now, and British farmers will say that these interest payments are injuring them. There is no complaint on New Zealand’s part about this. A bargain is a bargain and interest must be paid. But nevertheless it is totally untrue to say that the benefits New Zealand can afford to give its old age pensioners are dependent upon Britain. They are dependent upon the fertility of its land and the labour of its people, which Mr Savage and his Ministers believe, in spite of the deductions made from the product by a heavy interest bill, should be, and will be, sufficient to keep all New Zealanders in decency and comfort, during their working days-aud when their working days are done.