SOCIAL SECURITY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 281, 8 September 1938, Page 3

SOCIAL SECURITY

THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. NINETY-FOUR CLAUSES PASSED. MINISTER REPLIES TO MANY QUESTIONS. (Abridged from Press Associations WELLINGTON, Sept. 7. The House of Representatives this afternoon went into Committee for further consideration of the Social Security Bill, urgency being accorded the passing of the measure on the motion of the Prime Minister. Fifteen clauses were rapidly passed with little discussion, but at Clause 49, which deals with the period for which the sickness benefit is payable, Mr W. J. Poison (Nationalist, Stratford) said the clause set out that payment would last as long as incapacity lasted. He suggested that such a provision would tend to prolong sickness.

The Hon. W. Nash said the Commission set up under the Bill had power g to transfer the recipient of benefit a from one class to another. The effect of sickness on the income of the home 1 had to be* considered. The maximum , benefit for a man, wife and nine children would be £4 a week. If the benefit were reduced by half after six , months, the income of such family , would he £2 a. week, and that benefit } would then have to be .supplemented. The clause was agreed to without , further discussion, as was the next . clause. I Rapid progress was made with the [ next few clauses. War Pensioners. Speaking on clause 63 of the Bill, which contains special provisions as to war pensioners, Mr Nash said the posi--1 tion on April 1 next would bo that a y returned soldier who had 10 years’ re--1 sidence in the Dominion would receive ' a benefit of 30s a week. All returned men would receive that benefit and if a returned soldier already had an income of, say, £l. a week from other sources, lie would receive a total weekly income of £2 10s a week. Mr J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) contended that more was being done for the returned soldier under the present Bill than ever had been done for him in any measure that had previously come before the House. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nationalist, Cen- ' tral Otago) expressed the opinion that there were thousands of returned soldiers who would he compelled to contribute to the social security fund who would never derive the age benefit because their income precluded them from receiving such benefit. He asked if the Minister would give special eonsideratiion to these returned men as a class. Mr W. J. Lyon (Labour, Waitemata) said Mr Bodkin was putting up a touching case for returned soldiers who were well off. He considered as a returned soldier himself that the general outlook of returned men was that if the Government had any money to spare it should assist men receiving war veterans’ allowances. Reply to Points. Mr Nash, replying to points raised by the Opposition, said that perhaps provisions which were contained in the Finance Bill which might he introduced in the House next day would assist in clearing up the position. A war pensioner, bo said, at present received a pension amounting to 17s fid a week, but the economic pension would raise that amount to 30s for himself as well as £1 for his wife and 10s for each child in addition to the returned soldiers disability payment. At present a war veteran received 20s for himself, 15s for his wife and 5s for each child up to a maximum of £2 15s, while under the Finance Bill lie would receive 25s for himself, 15s for bis wife and ss_ for each child up to four in number, with a. maximum of £3. However, addl'd the Minister. the War Pensions Board had power to increase that amount to 80s for the returned soldier himself and £1 for his wife with a maximum of £3 10s. Provision was also made in the Finance Bill for South African veterans, added the Minister. Mr J. Ha rgest Nationalist, Awarua) said that apparently the provisions were not for returned soldiers with money, but he would remind them that 1 returned soldiers bad served tlie.ir country equally and had suffered tiie same whether they had money or not. Mr H. M Christie (Labour, Waipawa) remarked that it was interesting to hear members of the party which had cut soldiers’ pensions and left them to starve oil the land: for years expressing such solicitude for returned soldiers. War pensioners | were very well provided for under the Bill. Replying to the Opposition suggestion that returned men should receive benefits at t-lie age of 55 instead of 1 69, in view of their expectation of life i being reduced as a result of war scr- J vice, Mr Nash said that any soldier who c could qualify for the age benefit- at 55 would be able to qualify for the war i veterans’ allowance. If bo were per- j manently incapacitated he would got relief by emergency or invalidity bene- < fits. That being so. why reduce the i age to 55 ? 1 t The Medical Benefits. < A number of clauses were rapidly 1 passed with little or no discussion nil- ( til Clause 76 was reached. This deals with the administration of medical and * hospital benefits, and Mr H, S. R. Kyle ( (Nationalist. Riccnrton) asked the Min- 1 ister to inform the House how far the Government bad gone toward reaching J agreement with the medical profession. * It was pointed out by the Minister : that this aspect. o£ the Hill could bo J discussed under a later clause, and the clause was passed. | Commenting on thu next clause', defining the classes of benefits provided under the Act, tin* lit. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nationalist, Kaipara) asked if t benefits would be provided in the case of foster-children or adopted children, j

The Minister: Yes. They are all provided for under the BiTl.

The clause was passed. Dealing with Clause 79, dealing with the qualifications' of persons entitled to claim benefits, Mr Hamilton asked what was the necessity of providing medical benefits for people who did not need them. The medical service suggested was what could be called a universal partial service. What was the use of taxing* the community for a Ireo service tor those who could afford to pay for it themselves:-' Few Unable io Pay. Mr Hamilton said lie though;, that fully two-thirds of the community would bo able to pay for their own health service. It was not social security to give free health service to a man receiving, say, £IOOO a year. Mr Nash: Ho pays £SO a year for it. Mr Hamilton: He pays a lot more than that. He does not want the service. Continuing, Mr Hamilton said that lie thought the Minister of Health himself, if he took ill, would prefer to call in his own doctor. Mr Fraser: I am interested in the honourable gentleman’s point of view, but I find it difficult to understand. Under this scheme everyone will have the right to select their own. doctor, and the doctor will have the right to accept or reject the patient. There is complete* freedom of choice given under the Bill. The only trouble will he when more people want a popular doctor than he can handle, but that difficulty exists to-day. Mr Hamilton: Wlmt about people in country districts where there is only one doctor and they want to go on to some medical man in town ?

Mr Fraser: There is nothing to stop them from doing so in the Bill. It appeared that the Opposition wished to limit the benefits to certain incomes. Would the Opposition definitely say that and nominate the income above which benefits would not be received? Referring to the medical profession, lie said that, apart from a difference of opinion on the scope of the scheme with regard to- income, there was no great difference between the views of the doctors and those of the Government.

The clause was passed, and discussion was commenced on clause 84, dealing with the scope of medical benefits.

In reply to a point raiseci by Mr Hamilton on clause 84, Mr Nash said that the doctors themselves were to determine what the special skill was, and the Minister would have some representation on the appropriate committee. • That was one reason that might justify the all-in scheme lor everyone. In country districts doctors would have to be paid mileage. The clause was passed. Good progress was made after the passing of clause 84, when the sections of the Bill dealing with medical benefits and pharmaceutical benefits were passed. The hospital benefit section was passed and the House also put through clause 94, dealing with maternity benefits, leaving practically only the financial section of the Bill to he dealt with.