WAR PENSIONS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2632, 1 December 1915, Page 4

WAR PENSIONS

There is a tendency to carry the agitation respecting war pensions to excess. The Act requires' to bo amended, and this we believe is now generally Tho war pension should be obtainable as a right by every person entitled to it, regardless of circumstances. If a limit of income is fixed it should not be lower than the limit fixed for the payment of income tax, that is, £300 per annum. In other words, every person entitled to a pension who is in receipt of an income of less_ than £300 a year should be in a, position to claim as a right the full amount of the pension, without deduction of any kind. It is considered just that income tax should not be paid on any income under £300, and surely if a limit is to be fixed it is equally just that no person in receipt of less than that income shall be debarred from the right to the full war pension. We are assuming, of course, that Parliament will be inclined to regard it as being necessary to impose some restrictionof the kind, though the opinion is very generally held that the granting of the full war pension should not be governed by any other consideration than proof of the right of the claimant to a pension. • The administration of the Pensions Board has been criticised, and not entirely without justification. Mistakes have been made, and cases, which appeared to disclose errors of judgment and lack of uniformity have been quoted. But little allowance has been made for the difficulties of the task which confronted the Pensions Board in bringing into working shape a scheme of such far-reaching importance. Such decisions of the Board as have been open to question appear to have been mainly due to an overstrict interpretation of the Pensions Act, prompted by an excess of caution as to tho ultimate cost of the pensions scheme to the taxpayers of the Dominion. The Board in the early stages of its administration has been somewhat inclined to err on the side of cconomy; not from any desire ap. parently to deal ungenerously with claimants, but because the Act, while allowing the Board a certain latitude in fixing the amount of the pension to be paid, yet plainly suggested restriction in cases where claimants were already possessed of means. Latterly the Board has interpreted the Act in a more generous spirit, and there have been fewer instances of grievances, real or imaginary. It should also be borne in mind that claims are open to review. The first decision of the -Board is not final, and in some cases already the Board, in_ consequence of fresh evidence being adduced, or on reconsideration of the facts already available, has not hesitated. to alter its original decision. But the Act does restrict the Board in certain directions, and it _ does require amendment. The agitation for a special session of Parliament to make the necessary alterations is an extravagant and costly method of meeting the situation, and is not really required. We suggested on a previous occasion that the proper course to pursue was for the Government to intimate at once that the Act would be amended in certain specified directions when Parliament met, and that the amendments would be mado retrospective in their action. It is'quite safe to say that Parliament would be unanimous in agreeing to make tho conditions under which the pensions are granted, more liberal than they are under the Act as framed.'. Members all over the country have already expressed opinions favourable to this view. In the meantime claimants would suffer little hardship, for they would be assured of arroars of payment, and the Board with its hands strengthened by the Government's declaration of its intentions coulct administor the Act in the most liberal manner permitted under the discretionary clause relating to" the existing financial circumstances of claimants for tho "pen-