Pensions Economies and Charitable Aid.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20495, 14 March 1932, Page 10

Pensions Economies and Charitable Aid.

One of the savings recommended by. the Economy Commission is a reduction of nearly £600,000 in the expenditure on pensions by abolishing family allowances and economic pensions, reducing rates on old age, widows', and miners' pensions, and eliminating double pensions. The Commission supports its recommendations with arguments which show that, even if the depression did not exist, an overhaul of the pension system would be justified. Anomalies exist and the cost of living hag fallen. But the Commission's contention reaches much further. It is that " the "Dominion can no longer afford " £3,000,000 per, annum for pensions," and,this is unassailable and supports at least the belief that an over-all saving of the order proposed is unavoidable. It is as well to realise, however, that a cut of £600,000 in pensions payments would not necessarily mean a net saving of that amount to the community. The fall in the cost of living and the prospect, of a ftfrther fall should prevent th» lowering of rates from causing hardship; but if some classes of pensions are abolished, an extra burden must be thrown on charitable relief organisations. Such a prospect will arouse misgivings, because the Hospital Boards are already in financial difficulties owing to their heavy outlay on relief last year, and in the coming winter a pensions cut added to a probable increase in unemployment would put on them an almost intolerable burden. Nor can the Government get out of the difficulty merely by increasing its subsidy to the Board!, for by doing bo they will be further overloading an administrative maohine which has already partially broken down. „ The Secretary of the North Canterbury : , Hospital Board pointed out in a recent report on this subject that his Board was dealing with 600 applications for relief each week, that his staff "was seriously overworked in consequence, and that the investigation of cases of distress by inspectors had become a farce. A similar state of affairs exists in practically every large town in New Zealand, and if the Government is contemplating legislation which will increase the burden of charitable -relief hV must see that the strain on tho Boards is eased; otherwise they will be driven to a wasteful and demoralising system of indiscriminate charity, and the efficiency of hospital administration will be impaired at a time when efficiency is particularly necessary. The obvious remedy is to restrict Hospital Boards to the relief of destitution caused by"sickness and infirmity, and to make the provision of outdoor relief for unemployment, like the provision I of relief • work, a national concern.