I note that the Minister, when submitting this Vote to the House, referred to the fact that some part of the increase was due to a slight increase in the number of pensions and a slight increase as well in the amount of the pensions. I would be glad if the Minister would give us any explanation of the increase in the number of pensions. I think it is rather remarkable and interesting. Is it due to the fact that the percentage of old people in our population is increasing, that the tendency which was manifested in the census and which was so fully set before us in one of the publications by the Department of Industry and Commerce, instead of diminishing was, if anything, becoming more acute? If so, it would seem to indicate that, notwithstanding the good qualities which the Government so consciously possess, there has not been under their regime that increase in prosperity and in national wellbeing for which they take credit. I think the same might be said also as to the increase in the amount of the pension, because these pensions are based upon the destitution and poverty of the recipient, and it is to be assumed if the country were growing richer that, as a general rule, the average means of the applicant for a pension would increase, so that the pensions instead of tending to increase, as the Minister has admitted they are now doing, would tend to decrease. I presume, in view of other cases, particularly those relating to the income tax returns, in which I endeavoured to secure figures from the Minister, figures which would be useful and would assist us in forming an accurate view of the real economic position of the country, if I were to ask the Minister to state the actual increase in the number of pensioners which he anticipates and the actual increase in the average amount of pension paid to them that I should be asking for the information in vain. If the Minister can give it, I should be very grateful if he would do so.
In regard to the administration of pensions, I think there is a general feeling that the pensions officers interpret the regulations too stringently and with too little sympathy for the applicants. I know cases where people who apparently, as far as I could judge, as a result of their appearance and as a result of inquiries which I made and of evidence which they furnished, were entitled to the pension, had to wait three or four months before the pension was granted to them. At the same time I do not wish to stress that point too much, because the present economic circumstances of the country are such that we must be careful not to pay pensions to those who are not entitled to them. On the other hand, there are the ordinary considerations of human sympathy and human charity, and if persons at the age of 69 or 69½ years are in very poor circumstances it does seem a real hardship that the inquiries in regard to them should be so meticulously carried out that the payment of the pension to them is deferred often for six or seven months, during which time they may be in real need. In that connection I should like to know what are the instructions that are issued to the pensions officers. This matter becomes of importance when we remember that in the discussion upon the Bill to amend the Old Age Pension Acts, a Bill introduced from these Benches, the Minister for Finance stated that in calculating the means of an applicant, who resided in a working-class home the value of his or her board and lodging, of food and shelter, were not taken into consideration. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I am informed that it is not true: that as a matter of fact these things are taken into consideration and that the pensions officers have instructions to consider them when reporting as to the means of the applicant.
Again, there is a feeling—I do not share it, but I know that some people have it—that in practice the pensions officers tend to over-estimate means to the disadvantage of the claimant. Small farmers are hard hit by the method adopted for valuing land and farm produce. I have heard it stated that, owing to the way the Act is administered at present, thrifty clean people who maintain an appearance of comfort on means far below the limit which would entitle them to the maximum pension, are likely to be penalised. Of course, there is a great difference between just administration and unsympathetic administration, but I think if an inquiry into the means of an applicant is made, and if at first sight the general appearance of the applicant's home and of his surroundings appear to indicate that his means are such as to exclude him from the benefits of the Act, there should be a very searching inquiry made on the part of the officer to assure himself that the appearance of comfort was not due to causes other than plentiful means.
I think that the point which I have made has been mentioned year after year on this Vote. Possibly, one would think that the Minister had been impressed by it, and would have had some revision made in the instructions issued to his officers. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but again I am informed by those who do know, that there has been very little improvement in the manner in which these inquiries are carried out, and that the things which were complained of years ago under this head are still taking place. Another question that has come under my notice is the manner in which the age of applicants is being determined. Many of us know that parish records and parish registers were kept in a very unsatisfactory way 60 or 70 years ago, for the reason that in many cases those who were responsible for them were almost illiterate, and often, possibly, those who should have seen that their names were entered in those registers did not attach any importance to the matter, and neglected it. Therefore, the question of determining the age of an applicant becomes a very difficult one, I think.
I admit also that the position of the pensions officer who has to decide this question, bearing in mind his responsibilities to the State as well as the necessities of the applicant, is bound to be a difficult one. When I turn to the Report of the Old Age Pensions Commission of Inquiry, however, I find there that those who examined this question very carefully recommended that, so far as the age given in marriage certificates is concerned, "that the pension authorities, more particularly in the case of women, should exercise great caution in placing reliance on such certificates when there is anything pointing to the possibility of their being inaccurate."
That brings to my mind one or two cases which came under my notice in which the age of the applicant was in doubt and in which the pensions officers, so far as I could see, in determining the age, relied solely on these marriage certificates. Now I think that is not right. I suppose we all, male and female, have our share of vanity, and one form of vanity is that people believe they are younger than they are. That applies particularly to the ladies. No doubt it is a delicate matter for some people to be asked to state their actual age at the time of marriage. Investigation has shown that they have been in the habit of understanding their actual age. Since that is the case, and since it is common knowledge that it is the case, surely it is not right, when there is a doubt in the matter, that one of the deciding factors against an applicant should be the age she entered on the marriage register? I should say that if you were to add possibly five years, or maybe ten years, you would be nearer to the poor woman's exact age at the present day. I do not think that the Department or the officers allow for that. I have known cases where one of the points made against an applicant was that the age mentioned in the marriage register was such as not to entitle her to the pension.
Again, there is the question of the blind pensions. I think the standard laid down in regard to them is that a person must be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. I do not think that is quite a fair standard. I think a better standard could be fixed. That where a man's normal occupation is of such a nature that he requires rather better than the average eyesight, and that where his eyesight now is such that he is unable to work at that occupation he should be entitled to a pension. That is not putting it too high. It means that special consideration should be given to those cases where good eyesight is essential to enable a man to earn his livelihood. A man may have bad sight and yet be able to do a number of things, but if a man has spent his time doing work of a nature where good eyesight is required, in nine cases out of ten his physique, general character and disposition will be such that he will be unable to do any other work than the particular type of work in which he had been engaged. If through defective eyesight he is unable to earn his livelihood in that way, then I think he is entitled to an adequate pension. On behalf of Deputy Ward I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.