PENSIONS BY RIGHT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 22, 1 May 1916, Page 4

PENSIONS BY RIGHT.

The case of Mrs Dewar ivluch was brought fully before the public iujfOur columns a lew days ago, certainly lends weight to the contention of the War League that at present it is impossible under the New Zealand War Pensions Act for any man with dependents, other than his wife, to know what pension they would receive in the event of his falling. It is clearly laid down in the Act that the pension of a disabled soldier is subjct to no icduction because of the possession of private property or income other than payment of public moneys by way of Compensation, pension, or gratuity to which ho may be entitled under any Act or Imperial Act, but ou the othei baud the pension to which the dependents of deceased soldiers are entitled is not a matter of right, as the law now stands, because the means and circumstances of the dependents are taken into consideration, and the sum to he granted as pension 01 even the refusal to grant a pension stall to a dependent—may be decided by the Pension Board on the grounds that the dependent has an income or has relations liable at law for maintenance, with sufficient means to provide for his or her well-being. In the interesting statement from Mr James Macintosh, on behalf of the M ar League, which we published a few days ago, this was emphasised, and it was shown that under present conditions there is no pension for dependents as ‘‘a matter of right.” After demonstrating this the League gave a reasonable definition of :: “pension by right”’ in the following' words; “What 1 is 'meant by pension's' as of ijiglit is tips; That iii the’case of a deceased soldier:

! “(1) The ' pension should ' 'bti a' fixed' amount to' tile 1 ‘wife*; 1 'and to each of the children, without any aggregate maxiihuih, without any reference to the property or income oi tlie wife oi'of ally of tne children, of df 1 any person liable at law for their maintenance. Neither the hoard nor the Minister should have' any power to reduce that pension or to withdraw it. “(2)‘ In the ease of dependents other than the wife and children, the hoard should not take into consideration the property or income of the dependents or of any person liable at law 'for'their maintenance.

“(3) The pension, in the case of wife, child, or any other dependent should be payable tty such dependent, whether ho or she is resident in New Zealand or ,elsewhere. , , “(■I) The pension should not be liable to . reduction because the soldier died in New The, matter is one for the very earnest attention of the Government and Parliament, for not only in justice to the men with dependents—say a mother or sisters—partly or wholly dependent upon them, hut for the sake of the country at this very critical time. There are probably many men who, with the question of provision for dependents set at rest, would hesitate no longer about offering their services and thus recruiting would ho helped very materially. The Empire must have men, and those who do not go, from whatever reason, must at least! see that the dependents of those brave fellows who take their places in the fighting line are generously provided for. In the case of Mrs Dewar, mother of the gallant lad who fell at Gallipoli, where he played the game as splendidly as ho played it in the Rugby field, every Patriotic body that has gone into the matter are of opinion that more should be done for her as a right. The full ventilation of this case, let us hope, may lead to a definite pronouncement from the Government as to what it proposes to do in the way of making reasonable and ample provision for soldiers and their dependents.