The Daily News. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1917. NEW ZEALAND PENSIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 September 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1917. NEW ZEALAND PENSIONS.

In the House oi Representatives on Wednesday evening, the Minister for Defence, in extolling the Pensions Board for its liberality.'stated "it had been suggested that a schedule of injuries and payments should be prepared in connection with the pensions system, on the lines of the British scheme. That arrangement would not be to tho advantage of New Zealand pensioners, who already wer.c getting more than they would get under a schedule." The statement only adds to tho Minister's reputation for unreliability. A short time ago he said that the principle of differentiation in the British pensions system would not be acceptable to a democratic country like this. It was shown that the principle was heartily approved of by Mr. Barnes, the British Pensions Minister, one of the greatest democrats in Britain, and piloted by him. through the House of Commons; that it was sound and eminently just, and had the backing of the English workers, than whom there are no greater democrats in the world to-day. Now, tho Minister, whose antipathy to the British system has never been hidden, shifts his ground, and infers that it would be a mistake to adopt it in New Zealand because the soldiers themselves would suffer! But they will not be misled by this pleading. The Second Division have unanimously adopted, after exhaustive examination and careful consideration, the principles of "pensions by right and by schedule," leaving as little as possible to the discretion of the Pensions Board. Sir James Allen's statement will not withstand any test. We will give three Taranaki cases. A was so injured that ho has been unable to do any work. He* was awarded £1 by the Pensions Board. In Britain he would under the Hat minimum rate have received as a right (not at the caprice of any board) 27s (id per week, or under the alternative rate up to £3 15s a week. B lost an arm. The Pensions Board gave him 10s a week. Under the British scheme he would have been entitled to a minimum of 19s 3d, up to a maximum of £2 His. 0 suffered from the effects ot fever, was pronounced capable of earning his living, and got nothing from the Board. In England he could have claimed a gratuity up to £2OO. The disparity needs no emphasis from us; it speaks for itself, as does the fact that whilst the maxinrum pension a man in New Zealand can receive for total disablement is only

35s pins 10s for an attendant, in England he may receive up to £3 15s plus £1 for an attendant, -and plus scholastic and medical advantages. It is possible that in some instances the pensions given here are better than those in the British scheme, but it must be borne in mind that the Second Division are asking for the adoption of the British system, with its schedule for stated injuries and pensions by right, with a fifty per cent, increase to make up fur the difference in tho relative purchasing value' of money in tho two countries, in normal times, of course, and also for tiie dili'erence in the averago standards of living. This is but a fair request, and soldiers and reservists generally will, we think, be. quite satisfied to accept any risk attendant on the adoption of the scheme, secure as they will be in the knowledge that if they are injured they need not have to go cap in hand to a pensions board to ask for what is regarded in England as a simple right. It is impossible to .conceive why Sir James Allen made such a misleading statement, unless it wart deliberately intended as an intimation that he will not have suggestions forced upon him from outside his official circle, and such an attitude would coincide with the prevailing principle which Ministers appear to have adopted. Britain, on (he other hand, is accepting readily advice anil help, and receiving great benefit thereby.