SOCIAL SECURITY

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 179, 27 April 1938, Page 12

SOCIAL SECURITY

Evidence To Conclude

Next Week

COMMITTEE’S INQUIRY

‘Must Have Stopping Place,’ Says Mr. Savage

After to-day week no further evidence will he heard by the Select Connnitfee on National Health and State Superannuation. This decision was arrived at by the committee yesterday, when it refused the New Zealand Farmers’ Union an extension of time to present its case. “We must have a stopping place,” said the Prime Minister, the Kt. Hon. M. J. Savage, who added that in order to finish by the middle of next week it was proposed to sit on Saturday and Monday and at night if necessary.

Evidence at yesterday’s sitting was given by Dr. Ulric Williams, Wanganui, the Hospital Boards’ Association and the Edward Bellamy Society of New Zealand. Leave to make an explanation on behalf of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union was granted Mr. A. P. O’Shea, secretary of the union, at the commencement at the sitting. Mr. O’Shea said that the Prime Minister had stated that ample time would be given for a full discussion of the Government’s proposals. His organisation, however, felt that the time left was rather short, but that it would simplify matters very considerably if the Government would make an announcement as to whether or not it intended to do away with the present unfair method of hospital taxation once the new scheme was in operation.

The chairman (Rev. A. H. Nordmeyer) : The position briefly is that when your request to give - evidence came to my notice I consulted the clerk, who assured me that, as far as he could judge, we would finish the evidence next Monday. I asked him to advise your organisation accordingly, but apparently you think the time is too short. The question arises whether the committee would be justified in postponing its proceedings merely to hear evidence from the Farmers’ Union. Other people have had to come and give evidence at very short notice. -Why not you?

Mr. O’Shea: This is a matter that should receive the ample discussion the Prime Minister suggested it should receive. We feel, in the interests of the country, that consideration should be given. i The Prime Minister: I never suggested we should go on forever. We want to get to the end of this. Mr. O’Shea: A fortnight: is not a very long time for a national organisation to consider the proposals. The Prime Minister: We are not going on after the middle of next week. We must have a stopping place We have to draft legislation. Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Roskill) said he would like to know why the Farmers’ Union wanted further time when apparently its evidence was ready now. Mr. O’Shea: I didn’t say it was ready, but 1 say it will be ready by next. Tuesday. Mr. Richards: Are your members acquainted with the nature of the evidence you propose to give? Mr. O’Shea said that the evidence

had been prepared from resolutions passed by the branches. The union felt it should be given sufficient time to obtain comments from the provinces.

The Prime Minister: I move that the Farmers’ Union be heard on Tuesday next, and that Wednesday week be the last day for the taking of evidence. On the chairman’s suggestion it was agreed to put the motion in two parts, the first to read “that the Farmers’ Union be heard any day between now and Tuesday next.” This was carried. Before the second part of the motion was put, Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton) said that the committee might like to call certain departmental officers liut might find itself unable to fit them in between now and Wednesday week. The chairman: If it appears that there is anybody likely to be cut out I am sure the committee would be prepared to meet in the evening. The Prime Minister: That was the understanding when we took a week off. I am proposing now that we close on Wednesday week. We cau sit all night if necessary. Mr. S. G. Holland (Opposition, Christchurch North) : I am prepared to work, but I am not prepared to sit till night and injure my health. It is uot a reasonable proposition, especially when we have a Government supporting a 40-hour week. I am not prepared to ask the Government staff to work morning, noon and night. We haven’t held up the inquiry in any way. It is an enormous problem we are seeking to solve, and we should take proper time to do the job in our proper senses. The motion was carried. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Opposition, proua) aud Messrs. Kyle and Holland voted against it.

HEALTHY LIVING

Evidence Of Dr. Williams

The need to encourage people to live healthily was stressed by Dr. Williams, whose evidence occupied most of the morning. He contended that the methods adopted by the medical profession were wrong in that they attacked the germs and not the disease. Dr. Williams said there were three points that required to be considered. One was that the spirit of the proposal shduld be adequate, another that it should function, and tlie third that the science of it was right. If in any of those three particulars the proposal was found wanting it would not fulfil its purpose. “The proposal before us to-day is not lacking in spirit.” said Dr. Williams. “It is not lacking in willingness to carry it out. When it comes to the science'it is defective.” The proposal rested ou the assumption that medical treatment was either desirable or good for certain people. That assumption was wrong. Medical treatments which were based on false assumptions were wrong in principle, and because they were wrong they failed in practice. Their aim should be to encourage people to live healtliily, because people who lived healthily did not become diseased. Under present conditions a family could uot buy the food that it needed, and for that reason he suggested an increased family allowance. The people did not need more doctoring, but more protection from the existing system. He could go to the Wellington Public Hospital to-morrow and empty half the beds. Half the beds in hospital had no need to be there. There were two faults in the diet —over-con-sumption and dead foods. . In reply to questions, Dr. Williams said he was in no sense reflecting upon the medical profession; he was reflecting upon its methods. He alleged that in his work he was up against big vested interests and the newspapers.

EDWARD BELLAMY SOCIETY

Representations on behalf of the Edward Bellamy Society of New Zealand were made by Messrs. Alexander Scott and W. O. Beere. Mr. Scott said that they desired to congratulate the Government on its proposals, which they supported wholeheartedly. Their only criticism of the social security scheme was that the cost was too low. Money was not wealth. The country could afford a much higher standard of living. Superannuation should be regarded not as a compassionate allowance but as something to which every citizen who had attained the age of 60 was entitled as a matter of right, irrespective of need or income. Age and term of residence should be the only qualifications. 'The scheme, added Mr. Scott, should be financed from a social fund or a common good fund which could be used for all pensions and social services.

GOVERNMENT’S PLAN CRITICISED

Otago Farmers’ Resolution Dominion Special Service. Dunedin, April 26. Criticism of the Government’s intentions in connection with the national health and superannuation scheme was voiced at the monthly meeting of the Otago Provincial Council of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union to-day, and the following motion was carried unanimously :— “That this council is in favour of a national health and superannuation scheme provided such scheme complies with the principles laid down by the

Dominion conference-of the Farmers Union. The main principles laid down were z that any scheme propounded should be contributory aud that every person should be eligible to participate. Naturally, any scheme adopted should also be fundamentally sound. In the opinion of this council the social security proposals now brought forward by the Government have serious weaknesses which make it impossible for this council to support the proposals in their present form. We believe that the Government social security scheme is unjust in principle in that a majority of those who will be called upon to pay into the scheme will never be able io participate. We further believe that it definitely discourages individual thrift and self-reliance.”