OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 427, 14 July 1905, Page 2

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

When Mr Seddon introduced his electioneering measure, the Old-Age Pensions Amendment Bill, he had no idea probably what a hornet's nest he would bring about his ears. Parliament has been busy debating the anomalies of. the existing system; a Government supporter has unearthed the damning fact that the' administration has left inoperative an essential clause making it mandatory on Cabinet to set apart certain State reserves to provide an assured finance for the, scheme ; and Mr Taylor has secured a lot of sympathy for his motion " that no Bill dealing with old-age pensions will be satisfactory which fails to place the system on a more equitable basis by abolishing the penalties now imposed, upon many thrifty, industrious, and deserving old-agod colonists who, because they possess a home valued at £270, are deprived of the pension; and the House is of opinion that the injustice should be removed before the amount of the j pension is increased.'' As the Evening Post points out itis.utterly revolting to all sense of justice that a pension which is supposed to be the | reward of industry and merit should be awarded to a man who by drink* ior dissipation or idleness or gross improvidence has \ left himself absolutely penniless at the statutory age, while his neighbour who, with perhaps inferior opportunities has saved enough to have a cottage of, bis own is excluded as undeserving of the benefits of the scheme; and it is a gross abuse of language to apply the term " pension" to such a system. A pension is the reward of merit, while charitable aid is for the relief of necessity ; and much confuaion of thought and not a little demoralisation result, both among politicians and recipients, from the failure to keep the two spheres distinct.

But the anomaly is not confined to the single example instanced in Mr Taylor's amendment; it pervades the whole system, root and branch. The possession of any property, howaver meritoriously acquired, to the value named is an absolute disqualification. A man who in the prime of life has made provision for his old age by membership of a Friendly Society has thereby ceased to come within the statutory definition of merit. A man who has purchased an annuity of £26 a year from an insurance company ig, as Mr W. Fraser pointed out, disqualified in thesame way. In fact, (as the Post points out) the qualifications and disqualifications recognised by the scheme throughout are exactly those of charitable aid, except that certain gross crimes and proved intemperance operate as a bar to tho pension. Mr Taylor!s proposal did not cut at the root of 'the absurdities of the system, which, indeed, would involve its complete reconstruction; but it did propose to remove the pauperising taint in one of its most glaring manifestations. The choice between making the present pittance less in: adequate in amount and making the bestowal of it less monstrous in its injustice is naturally a hard one to make; and no unworthy motives need be invoked to explain the selection of • either alternative. Sir Joseph Ward maintained that " the nucleus of a universal pension would be included in the Bill if it (the amendment) were agreed; to," find Mr SeddoD, of course, urged that it would wreck the Bill. There would be (as our contemporary says) no objection to seeing the Bill wrecked altogether in order to make way for a measure which would provide "a Round and permanent financial basis for the scheme. This heavy and growing charge should rest upon some surer foundation than annual appropriations from the Consolidated Fund,j and it is good electioneering but vicious statesmanship to goon increasing the amour* t without pro? viding an endowment which will stand the stress of hard times and financial embarassment.