ERHAPS the most striking characteristic of colonial

PERgislation is its tendency toward experiment. Nor

is this unnatural. England, the mother of many colonies, is old and slow to change her ways, and public opinion takes long to form in a nation of thirty-eight millions of people. The chains of precedent are not easily shaken off in a land where civilisation has been the slow growth of many hundreds of years, where pictures are dimmed, and statues and public buildings blackened with the decay of centuries, and where the whole environment speaks of an historic past. But in the colonies the naturally conservative feeling of Englishmen undergoes a reaction. Traditions have little hold upon us. Public opinion is more quickly formed, and the dream of a few quickly becomes the ideal of many. We live in an age of universal suffrage, and popular leaders are naturally appreciative of the aspirations of the vote-possessing multitude. Besides, it is only to be expected that colonists who have been thrown upon their own resources from the very outset, who have had to make homes with their own hands in a new country, should develop a constructive faculty, an originality, and habits of self-reliance which would lead them to form plans of action as bold as they are novel.

POLITICAL EXPERIMENTS.

New Zealand is a typical colony, and it must be admitted that its legislation is largely experimental. Some, pessimists for the most part, would have us believe that it is the happy hunting ground of the political faddist. Are we really rushing in where angels fear to tread, or are our laws simply a little ahead of the times? To illustrate the tendency of progressive legislation at length would be beyond the scope of this article; but it requires no far stretch of imagination to prophesy that, before many years are over, many of our laws, which now appear to contain new political principles of doubtful expediency, will be adopted in other colonies. The women's franchise is "coming." It is only a question of time. Our Conciliation and Arbitration Act is attracting attention even in England, and Lands for Settlement Act, giving powers to the State of acquiring large estates by compulsion (as a last resort), is now recognised, even by those who were at one time most opposed to it, as not having been productive of any injustice in practice, and as having done much to promote closer settlement on the land.

our

Probably no measure passed in any colony has been so experimental, progressive, democratic (whatever it may be called) as the Old Age Pensions Act, just passed by the New Zealand Parliament, and it is for that reason, and because it is the first Act of its kind passed in any colony, that I consider some account of its provisions might prove interesting to the readers of the REVIEW OF REVIEWS.

The idea of an old age pension arises partly out of a feeling of repugnance to a poor law, or charitable aid system, and partly from the spread of Socialistic views which are directly antagonistic to the laisser faire principle, and are constantly urging on legislation tending to the equalisation of wealth. Even those who are most energetic in preaching the virtues of thrift admit that in a civilised country we cannot allow our aged poor to

starve.

If this be granted, it is but a step further to say that we shall take care of our aged poor, not only so as to keep them from bare starvation, but in such a way that their declining years shall be passed in reasonable comfort, and that we shall do this at the expense of the strong, the active, and the wealthy in the community, any member of which may one day need the like assistThis is socialistic, no doubt, but so is all charitable aid, and the day has gone by when a project could be condemned merely because it savoured of Socialism. All States maintain their aged poor in some way-grudgingly, for the most part; and if this has to be done, the question is, Why should it not be done cheerfully, and in such a way that the bitter pill of charitable aid shall at least be disguised as much as possible?

ance.

66

A LONG DEBATE.

The agitation in favour of old age pensions is little more than three years old in New Zealand. About the year 1895-6 it was a common question to ask aspiring candidates for political honours, "Are you in favour of old age pensions? The reply almost invariably given to this, and generally considered a "safe one, was Certainly, if a practical scheme can be devised" (there is great virtue in an "if"). The Premier (Mr. Seddon) was known to be in favour of the general principles of old age pensions, but it came as a surprise when, in 1896, he actually introduced an Old Age Pensions Bill. This was just before the general election of that year, and every politician knows that while some Bills are introduced with the hope that they may pass, other are brought in in order that the Government may learn, from the discussion that takes place, in which way the cat of popularity is likely to jump. The Bill of 1896 was destined to die young. A crude measure at best, it was dropped after an amendment had been carried against the Government in favour of making the pension universal. A general election took place immediately after the session, and a scheme of old age pensions naturally became one of the planks of the Liberal Party. The Government came back with a reduced but considerable majority, and in the session of 1897 another Bill, dealing with the same subject, was introduced. After an animated debate, during which every form and scheme of old age pensions was discussed ad nauseam, the Bill, with many amendments, passed the Lower House, only to be rejected by the Legislative Council; an event which, if we admit the French principle of reculer pour mieux avancer, was by no means an unalloyed evil.

A Bill similar to that which had been rejected by the Council in the previous session, but with some modifications and improvements, was introduced in the House of Representatives this session, and after being again amended, passed through all its stages. The Legislative Council (now reinforced by three members appointed by the Government during the recess) approved of the

second reading by a majority of eight. The Speaker of the Council ruled that as the Bill was a money bill it could not be amended in committee, and so it finally passed in the same form as it had come up from the Lower House.

THE OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT.

There are hundreds of schemes for solving this difficult problem. They differ from each other in every possible way, but their points of difference may be classified under three heads :

(1) What should be the amount of the pension?
(2) Who would receive the pension? and
(3) How should the money be provided?

I propose to show how the New Zealand Act has answered these questions.

HOW MUCH SHOULD THE PENSION BE?

After long debates, and as the outcome of many opposing theories, the amount of the pension has been fixed at £18 a year, which works out approximately at a shilling a day. There are, however, many members who hold that a larger pension should have been granted, and that this should have been diminished, pound by pound, by all income accruing to the pensioner without any exemptions. Practically the amount of the pension is of less financial importance than the question of how far the fact that a person is in receipt of an income should affect the amount of his pension. The provisions of the Act dealing with this part of the subject will be explained later on.

WHO SHOULD RECEIVE THE PENSION?

Two ancient adversaries, Logic and Expediency, come into conflict immediately this question is raised. Logic champions the theory that every old man (or woman) should receive a pension out of the ordinary revenue because, (1) Every one contributes towards that fund in the shape of taxes; (2) If a distinction is attempted to be drawn between the indigent and those in comfortable circumstances, and relief is given only to the former, such relief cannot be a "pension," but must be in the nature of charitable aid.

At one time there was a majority in the representative Chamber in favour of the principle that pensions should be given to all, but the difficulty of raising sufficient money, by taxation or otherwise, to carry out such a vast scheme, proved insurmountable, and member after member has reluctantly abandoned the universal pension as "a consummation devoutly to be wished," but impracicable. Logic may have been the guiding star of philosophers of the time of Socrates, but expediency is the goddess of the degenerate politician of the present day, and in 1898 Parliament reversed its decision given in 1896, and decided emphatically against the universal pension scheme.

After abandoning the project of giving pensions to all, Parliament fell back on the principle that pensions should be given only to those who were in actual want. This came so very near to charitable aid pure and simple, that it was felt that if it was intended to distinguish between poor law relief and an old age pension, some special qualification should be added. This distinction is made

by insisting that a pensioner shall be a deserving " person. The principle underlying the New Zealand Bill is, therefore, that pensions should be given to the aged deserving poor.

SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES.

The age limit was the first. In connection with th the Bill provides that "Subject to the provisions of thi Act, every person of the full age of sixty-five years u upwards shall, whilst in the colony, be entitled to pension as hereinafter specified."

While some considered that the age should be fixe at sixty, instead of sixty-five, it was generally concede that the Bill should be made as economical as possib! at first.

Having decided that the pension should be given t the aged poor, the question arose, "When is a man poor that he should receive from the colony a pension z his old age?" The Act provides that he shall receive a pension if "his yearly income does not amount to fiftytwo pounds or upwards"; and also, "the net capit value of his accumulated property does not amount two hundred and seventy pounds or upwards."

Perhaps the most knotty point to decide was to whe extent should any income a pensioner might be receiving affect the amount of his pension. To meet this difficulty pensions are fixed on a sliding scale, and a distinction made between income derived from accumulated property and income received from any other source. To quote the Act again,—

"(9) The amount of the pension shall be eighteen pound per year, diminished by, (1) One pound for every complex pound of income above thirty-four pounds; and also by, (2) (m pound for every complete fifteen pounds of the net capital val of all accumulated property, computed and assessed as n hereinafter provided.'

In assessing the value of accumulated property an exemption is allowed of £50.

The effect of these provisions is that a person having an income of £34, and having no more than £50 worth of property, will receive the full pension of £18. If his income exceed £34, his pension will be diminished to a proportionate extent.

If a person holds property of the value of £50 he may still receive the full pension, but his pension will be diminished £1 for every £15 worth of property he owns in excess of the exemption, so that a person possessing £320 worth of property will not receive any pension. As only the deserving persons are to receive pensions, it is important to ascertain

WHO ARE THE DESERVING?

It would be as well to mention at the outset, in case there are any old men in other colonies who have conceived the idea of hastily emigrating to New Zealand, that the people of this colony have no intention of allowing it to become a dumping-ground for the aged poor of other countries, and that a period of residence of twentyfive years is necessary before a claim to a pension can be established.

Aliens, Asiatics, lunatics, and criminals, as would be expected, are excluded from the benefits of the Act. There are, however, degrees of criminality, and a criminal is not, within the meaning of the Act, unless" during the period of twelve years immediately preceding he has been imprisoned for four months, or on four occasions, for any offence punishable by imprisonment for twelve months or upwards, and dishonouring him in the public estimation ; or during the period of twenty-five years immediately preceding such date he has been imprisoned for a term of five years with or without hard labour for any offence dishonouring him in the public estimation."

estimation" are said to be taken from the Danish Act,

and will probably need a good deal of judicial interpretation. Wife deserters (and husband deserters) are also disqualified.

Great efforts have been made to establish a distinction between those who are entitled to "pensions" and the recipients of charitable aid. The task was an almost superhuman one after it had been decided that poverty was a necessary qualification. With this object an attempt has been made to institute a character test." The result is that any one reading the Bill would almost imagine that it had been drawn up by a Parliament of Puritans, and that the pensioners would be numbered among the saints. Yet no one can deny that the object is a most laudable one, and it is to be hoped that, at any rate, some worthless characters will thus be excluded. To obtain a pension a claimant must show (to the satisfaction of a magistrate) that "he is of good moral character, and is, and has for five years immediately preceding, been leading a sober and reputable life." If a pensioner is convicted of certain offences (drunkenness in particular) the magistrate may forfeit any one or more instalments of his pension, and "if, in the opinion of the convicting court, any pensioner misspends, wastes, or lessens his estate, or greatly injures his health, or endangers or interrupts the peace and happiness of his family, the court may, by order, direct that the instalment be paid to any clergyman, justice of the peace, or other reputable person for the benefit of the pensioner, or may, by order, cancel the pension certificate." After this who shall say that the women's franchise has had no influence on our New Zealand legislation?

WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM.

The amount of money annually involved can only be estimated approximately. New Zealand has a population of 750,000 people, and the Government estimate the cost of the pension at £120,000 a year. In nearly every country of the world this would be met by increasing taxation, and, indeed, this was proposed by the Bill of 1896, but omitted from the bills subsequently introduced. But in New Zealand our finances are in a remarkable position. For years past there has been a surplus of revenue over expenditure indeed, so large has the surplus been, that during the last five years over £1,000,000 has been transferred to the Public Works Fund, out of which roads, bridges, and railways have been constructed. Without entering into such controversial points as how much the annual surplus has been, it is generally admitted that there is every probability that in the future it will be more than sufficient to supply the amount required to pay the pensions given by the Act. In other words, our ordinary revenue will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the old age pensions charge without additional taxation. The financial proposals of the Act are therefore of the simplest kind, and are contained in one clause

(58) The Colonial Treasurer shall from time to time, without further appropriation than this Act, pay out of the Consolidated Fund into the Post Office Account, by way of imprest, whatever moneys are necessary in order to enable the instalments specified in such schedules to be paid out of such account, and the Postmaster-General shall thereupon pay such instalments accordingly :

Provided that this section shall continue in operation until the fourteenth day after the close of the second session of the now next succeeding Parliament, but no longer.

The proviso is important, since it ensures that the whole question must come before Parliament again within three years' time.

There are always two sides to every question, and the

Opposition party held the view strongly that the pension fund should be derived partly from individual contributions, as in Germany. The strong argument in favour of this was that such a scheme would be a direct incentive to thrift (a virtue which is not encouraged by the Act). On the other hand, it was argued that few would avail themselves of the advantages of a pension scheme which was merely voluntary, and an Act insisting on direct compulsory contributions would be impracticable. Many held that the proceeds of some special tax should be set apart to provide a pension fund, but as no one wished to add to our already heavy burden of taxation, the majority considered the simplest plan would be to make the pensions a charge on the general revenue, or Consolidated Fund.

THE MACHINERY OF THE ACT

He

Having dealt with the main principles of the Act, a few notes may be added as to the details. Registrars and deputy-registrars are to be appointed to administer the Act. Their powers and duties, however, are not stated in the Act, but are to be such as the governor from time to time determines. Every claimant to a pension must prove his claim before a magistrate in open court. then will obtain a pension certificate, available for one year. At the end of the year he has to submit a statement of his income and of his property, and thus prove his right to a renewal of his certificate. Pensions are payable monthly at post-offices (with a few exceptions) on the personal application of the pensioner. In cases where pensioners are in receipt of charitable aid, the cost of their maintenance is to be paid out of their pension. As might be expected, there are extensive precautions taken to provide against fraud. Pensions are to beabsolutely inalienable, "whether by assignment, charge, execution, bankruptcy, or otherwise, howsoever." The people of New Zealand have a considerable aversion to creating vested interests, and in order to provide against this it is declared that

Every pension granted under this Act shall be deemed to be granted and shall be held subject to the provisions of any amending or repealing Act that may hereafter be passed, and no pensioner under this Act shall have any claim for compensation or otherwise by reason of his pension being affected by any such amending or repealing Act.

WILL IT WORK?

Such are the main provisions of one of the most notable Acts that has passed the New Zealand Legislature. The Bill, at all events, received full discussion,. In the House of Representatives no fewer than 1,367 speeches were delivered in Committee. It was finally passed by a large majority. To say that those who voted in its favour were enthusiastic in praise of The its merits would scarcely be true. hostility

of its opponents, who declared it was an attempt to pauperise the people by an extensive system of outdoor relief, cannot be denied. Many of those who, in its inception, were carried away by the benevolent idea of a "pension" for the aged, became lukewarm when they discovered that the scheme was but a glorified system of charitable aid. The Act is admittedly experimental, and will certainly require amendment. We have been sailing in an unknown sea, with no chart to guide us. But as an attempt honestly made to solve what has been called the "World's Puzzle -a practical system of old age pensions-the Act should command the attention of statesmen in countries far distant from the little colony which has been the first to grapple with one of the greatest questions of the day.