MINERS’ PENSIONS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5010, 6 August 1926, Page 2

MINERS’ PENSIONS.

MR A. M. SAMUEL PLEADS CAUSE. ATTENTION DRAWN TO ANOMALYOn July 16 last, when Parliament was in committee on the the question of payment to th© dependants of a, deceased miner" pensioner of any accrued pension that might have' been due at the date of his death, and which, according to law, Should be used towards, the cost of defraying the funeral expenses of the pensioner, was. introduced by Mr A. M. Samuel, M.P., who s,aid he wished to refer to a matter, concerning the administration of .certain expenditure of the Pensions' Department vitally affecting the widow of a deceased pensioner, and that was the amount allowed for funeral. expenses, which must not exceed £2O. .An estimate had been arrived at whereby the amount hrid been fixed at £l3 10s, but their amount had been increased owing to special circumstances in certain districts. The .amotant to which the allowance had been increased in *a certain district which he represented enabled the, widow and dependants of the. pensioner ,to give him decent burial. • The point he wished to make was if a pensioner died the day after his pension was due and paid his dependants sh£t fered no loss, but if he died before his pension became payable, then suffering and loss was inflicted upon his dependants. If, for instance, a pensioner lived 27 or 28 days after payment of his pension he .Was certainly entitled to his pension for that period. A man had to be totally incapacitated for work before he got a pension, and the pension was therefore a payment in lieu of work. If, thertefore, a man worked for 27 or 28 days after receiving his last payment his dependants were clearly entitled to the amount earned, but not so with a pension. That should not' be, as in most cases, the pension, being in lieu ct wages, had been anticipated by the widow, and was money actually owing to the tradespeople. It was money that was spent because it was earned.. It wasi therefore the duty of the Government to see that the ma.n was paid, the total amount owing to him up to the date of his death.' If that was not done, .then somebody had to suffer. As a miner’s phthisis pensioner was in receipt of only £1 15s a week to keep himself, his wife, and his family, he could not buy for those dependants anything but the necessaries of life, and in some cases it was even difficult to purchase the necessary food. Therefore, if the pensioner had earned this money it ought to be paid, and should not be deducted Hor funeral expenses. It was the. duty of the Government to pay the burial allowance as set out by law, and that was where he contended that the matter came under the administration of the Government. It w,as the legal duty of the Government to pay a,ny accrued pension that was due 'to the widow and dependants, of the deceased miner. He had already pointed out the anomaly to the Government, and the question was coming up before Cabinet for consideration. He felt sure the Government would see the injustice of what was being done at present and would halve the matter rectified. It is understood that in the case referred to above Cabinet has seen fit to pay the money to the widow.