THE SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22501, 8 September 1938, Page 12

THE SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

RETURNED MEN’S POSITION Greater Benefits Suggested VIEWS OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS iFrom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON. September 7. Tile ' position of returned soldiers Under the Social Security Bill was debated at length in the -Souse' of Representatives this evening during consideration of clause 63 of the bill in committee. Opposition members contended that the returned soldier would be given no greater benefits than any other citizen, and might be worse off ■ than he was under the present legislation. The debate became acrimonious at times, and there were many arguments arpbng members over interjections. Mr J. A. Roy (National, Clutha) suggested that the lowering of the age • limit for returned soldiers, perhaps by 5 years, would be a recognition of their service overseas. The bill gave an advantage of five years . already, said the Minister for Finance (the Hon-. W. Nash), in that the qualifying age for a pension was reduced for everybody by five years. Returned soldiers, therefore, got the advantage of the five years asked for. Provision would be made in a Finance ■Bill, which would probably come down to-morrow;, to remove anomalies. Mr J. A. Lee (Government, Grey Lynn) said that the bill proposed to do more for returned soldiers than any legislation had done previously. When the bill became law, a returned soldier and his wife would receive a maximum of 77s 6d a week, with free medical attention, against the present maximum of 52s 6d, without medical attention. “That is an improvement of 25s a week, yet the Nationalist poison gas factories are turning out anonymous letters to the papers, condemning these provisions of the bill,” he said. , Mr W. J. Lyon (Government, Waitemata) said that, the first man who should be helped was the returned man in poor circumstances, who was breaking down in health, not the man with enough money to keep going. Re-, turned men themselves would insist on this. “Deserve More Consideration” There should be some means by which a returned soldier could get a pension before other members of the community, said Mr J. Hargest (National* Awarua). He would be very sorry to'see the bill give rise to class prejudice, by making a distinction between the incomes of differem classes of returned men. They all deserved some consideration above that given the rest of the community. Mr H, M. Christie (Government, Waipawa) said that the bill did not take anything away from the war pensioner that he had at present, and, in fact, gave him more. There had been complaints about men .burned out by war service not being passed for pensions; but doctors were reasonable today, and clearly recognised that some men broke down in health, not from my specific cause, but from the results of war service. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara) said that there could be no distinction between men who had served for longer or shorter periods. The bill should provide at least the amounts provided by the pensions of io-day, and should liberalise the income qualifications. Many returned men now found, it paid them better, it the age of 65, to receive a pension under the civil old age pensions legisv. lation than to rely on a war veteran’s allowance, for which a lower income was allowed. “This bill should liberalise returned soldiers’ income allowances,” said Mr Coates. “At present it gives the returned soldier no more than every other citizen is able to receive. Returned men themselves have asked that the income maximum be raised, and that they still 'be allowed to take the war, veteran’s allowance.” Mr W. P. Endean (National, Parnell) ‘described the whole bill as a piece of engineering with .the election in view. Any soldier, said Mr Nash, if he were. in- aestate" of health; to justify it, could claim the ordinary benefits under the bill, and was well protected. He could, for qualify, for. .invalidity, - emergency, or unemployment benefits, irrespective of his age,- as other • citizens; could. Returned soldiers /were - in mind when. the bill .was drafted* and it afforded complete protection. Mir Coates; I can’t help thinking that the' object is to absorb all returned soldiers’ benefits into the bill as far as possible. Mr Nash: That is not so, A bill will come before the House to-morrow which will deal with the War Pensions Board, and not to bring it under this bill. , Mr Coates: The affected are asking for the maximum income qualification to be raised. That"is all. They have . no desire to come under any Social Security' Bill. They are entitled to more generous benefits. The discussion ■ then lapsed, after an hour and- three-quarters on one clause. “PROSPECTS ARE NOT ENCOURAGING” FRIENDLY SOCIETIES* POSITION UNDER SCHEME : There was considerable discussion on the, Social Security Bill at a recent meeting of the Loyal Benevolent Lodge, M.U., 1.0.0. F. The N.G. (Bro. H. Thomas) presided. The view was expressed that the prospects for 'friendly societies when the scheme is in operation are not encouraging. The lodge agreed, however, that friendly society representatives in Wellington could not be charged with having failed to do what was expected of them, as they knew nothing of the bill’s contents and thus could not take any action. Bro, W. A. Taylor, P.G., resigned as sick visitor because of ill-health. It was decided to present him with a past grand’s jewel in appreciation of his services. Bro. E. B. Dalziel, P.G., was appointed to fill the vacancy.

PROVISION FOR UNEMPLOYED Amount Thought To Be Inadequate BENEFITS DEFINED BY MINISTER [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 7. The provisions in the Social Security Bill for the benefits to be paid to unemployed persons provoked a long discussion during the committee stages of the bill in the House of Representatives this afternoon. Members of the Opposition claimed that the Government was not making adequate provision for -unemployment; but the Hon. W. Nash (Minister for Finance) declared that the Opposition was not in sympathy with the principle of social security. The Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) said he believed that the Minister’s estimate of the cost of unemployment benefits under the bill was about £1,500,000, and he would like to know whether that was the only provision that was to be made for unemployment. Many of the present so-called Public Works jobs were really relief schemes, and it was difficult to see how those persons, and others at present provided for 'under the employment promotion fund, were provided for in the bill. Mr J. Hargest (National, Awarua) mentioned the case of a young man, possibly not much over 16, who might wish to wait for an opening in a particular calling. • It seemed that he would have to take any work offered to him. or be refused unemployment benefits. Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago), who said that the unemployment fund, as far as women were concerned. had been “a complete washout," asked whether placement officers were to be stationed in every district to decide whether women were or were not fit to undertake whatever work might be offering. “Will this be in substitution for the employment promotion fund, or will it be collateral with it?” asked Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford). “I am not sure whether this is the wisest way to deal with unemployment, because I do not think the Minister wants to see a dole complex in New Zealand.” “The Employment Promotion Act is repealed by this bill, so that there can be no duplication,” the Minister replied. “The payment o! benefits will be under the control of the commissioners. Every person between 16 and 60 who cannot get ordinary employment will qualify for benefits. Anyone who is not taking reasonable steps to find work, or who will not take suitable work when it is offered, will be disqualified; and disqualification will also be imposed on persons who have not been in the country for 12 months. A married woman who can show that her husband cannot maintain her will qualify for benefits.” Mr H. S. Kyle (National, Riccarton): I know of a case where four methylated spirits drinkers, who are living together, are being paid sustenance to-day. Mr Nash: They won’t get a benefit. Mr Kyle: Will they be left to starve? Mr Nash: No. We will do everything possible for them. Commissioners’ Task Mr W. J.. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said that the commissioners appointed under the. bill would have a he-man’s job to handle urlemployment benefits alone. He believed there were 1200 persons engaged in the placement service to-day. The Minister: That is a dream of the member for Waitomo. Mr Broadfoot; And this social security, or Insecurity, as it has been called, is a dream of the Minister for Finance. . Mr S. G. Smith (National, New Plymouth): A nightmare. “In spite of everything they say about supporting the principle of the bill,” the Minister said, “one now and then hears definite opposition to the bill from the Oppdsition benches. They say they are in favour of the bill—but. The people of the country want every clause in this bill to go through, and for that reason the Opposition dare not say too much against it; but they know what they would do if they had charge of the country.” “We are not opposed to the bill; but it is so difficult to get a straight statement from the Minister,” said Mr Smith. “The people don’t want a bill that will fall down under its own weight.” Mr Broadfoot said that because an election was at hand the Minister endeavoured to cloud the issue concern-, ing the financing of the scheme; but the bill would pot come into effect until after the election, and after deluding the people, the Minister would disillusion them by watering down the benefits. It was obvious that the Government had only a sustenance scheme, and no unemployment policy. The Minister for Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said that sustenance might be necessary to tide people over between jobs. It was ridiculous for the Opposition to suggest that the Government would be less sympathetic to the unemployed than its predecessors; but if a man was offered work, and was fit to take it. he should do so. That would be the line taken with the unemployed. - After some further discussion the closure was applied. Members of the Opposition called for a division on the closure motion, which was carried by 49 votes to 19. and the clause was allowed to go through on the voices. NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND BENEFITS WILL NOT BE REDUCED (.From. Our Parliamentary Reporter.! WELLINGTON. September 7. An assurance that the Social Security Bill would not reduce the benefits already payable to persons who were contributors to the National Provident Fund or to funds established by friendly societies was given by the Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) during the committee stages of the bill in the House of Representatives to-night. _ ... ... The Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) said it had been stated that the bill would not affect certain superannuation funds, such as those of the National Provident Fund, and certain friendly societies. He would lik? to know what effect the operation of*the bill would have on the National Provident Fund, for instance. “This will not reduce the benefits of those who are contributors to the National Provident Fund,” Mr Nash replied.* “While there may be some who will prefer the benefits to be gained by other means, I think those in the bill are at least as good as anything* else available. The bill is certainly likely to affect new membership of the National Provident Fund, because nothing else that can be obtained is equal to the benefits under the bill. , Mr Hamilton: People generally take what gives them the best results. “Well, there is nothing that will return benefits equal to those* of - the bill,” the Minister replied.

THE MEDICAL BENEFITS

“UNIVERSAL SERVICE NOT WANTED” VIEW OF LEADER OF OPPOSITION POSITION OF DOCTORS UNDER RILL (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, September 7. Criticism of the universal provisions of the health section o£ the Social Security Bill was voiced in the House of Representatives this evening by the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) on the ground that there was no general demand in the country for such a service. Seventy per cent, of the people, he said, would prefer to make their own arrangements with their doctors. The Minister for Health (the Hon. P. Fraser) said that under the new scheme the people would be able to select their doctors as they could now, except that where a doctor was popular and had too many patients to look after successfully, his panel would be limited; but that would obtain under any scheme, partial or otherwise. Apart from the difference over income limitations, there was no serious difference between the Government and the medical profession over details of the scheme. , . . Mr S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North) said that the universal provisions were the point at which the Government and the Opposition parted company. A partial scheme f9r all was envisaged, where the Opposition be-« .lieved a full scheme for those who could not afford adequate attention was what was needed. An essential part of any health scheme was the cooperation of the doctors, and the delete rs had already made it abundantly plain that they would not give their lull co-operation to this scheme. Dr. D. G. McMillan (Government, Dunedin West) said that the only sensible way to finance a health scheme was on a group basis. To say that the doctors would give less valuable service under the scheme was a libel on the profession. Mr Hamilton; A universal scheme is not wanted. The majority of the people are not in favour of it. Mr J. A. Lee (Government, Grey I Lynn): You wait and see. | “What is the sense of taxing all the i people to provide a service for the j rich,” said Mr Hamilton. The Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) said that the fundamental theme of the bill was that a gcoa doctor would not be forced to work for nothing, and a patient would not be forced into the position of accepting charity. That frequently happened ! at present. A panel scheme, as sug-1 gested by the Opposition, would di- j vide the community into two classes; j but the Government’s scheme would provide equal treatment for all. Doctors would give better service under the scheme, even, than they were giving now, because they would not have to worry about fees. PAYMENT FOR HOSPITAL TREATMENT COMPENSATION NOT TO BE ATTACHED [From Our Parliamentary Reportc*.] WELLINGTON, September 7. An undertaking to examine further the relevant clause in the Social Security Bill with a view to making it clear that compensation paid for loss of earning power could not be attached for payment of hospital attention was given by the Minister for. Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) during the committee stage on the bill in the House of Representatives to-night. The point was raised by Mr A. C. A, Sexton (Independent,. Franklin), who said that a person should be entitled to the benefits under the bill, and any compensation for himself, to enable him to make good again. Mr Nash said that if any sum were awarded under the Workers Compensation Act. because of loss of earning power, none of that money would be attached for the purpose of paying for hospital attention. Mr Sexton: But the bill does not say that. It says the very opposite. Mr Nash said the loss of earning power often continued after the receipt of hospital treatment. Mr Sexton: That is the point I am making. The Minister said the sum recovered from an insurance company to pay for medical attention was recoverable by a hospital. It was not intended to deprive an individual of benefits to .which he was entitled. If a person recovered money for payment of hospital attention, then that money should go to the hospital: but money recovered for loss of earning power belonged to ,the individual. The clause was passed. URGENCY TAKEN . DEBATE TO FINISH TO-DAY [From Our Parliamentary Reporter,] WELLINGTON, September 7. Further consideration in Committee of the Social Security Bill occupied the whole of to-day’s sitting of the House of Representatives, which was extended on a motion for urgency. Unemployment, the position of returned soldiers, and the medical aspect of the social security scheme came under concentrated fire from, ■members of the Opposition, and it was on these topics that most discussion centred. The Statutes Amendment Bill, which makes alterations to a wide range of acts, was introduced during the day. > The House rose at 1.20 a.m. By that time most of the benefit clauses had been passed, leaving only financial and general clauses for discussion to-mor-row. It has been indicated that urgency will again be takAi and the Committee stages of the debate finished tomorrow.