OPPOSITION VIEW

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 49, 26 August 1938, Page 6

OPPOSITION VIEW

QUESTION OF COST

MR. HOLLAND SUMS UP

"DOOMED TO FAILURE"

The statement that the National Party stood for the maintenance of State social security fully adequate to requirements, with the undertaking that it would be expanded if found necessary, and if the country could afford the expense, was made by Mr. S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North). "If we are returned to power—and everything points that way (Government laughter)—we will not cut wages and we will not cut pensions," he said. "That is as emphatic a statement as it is possible for anyone to make." He went on to say that the Opposition believed that the State should look after those unable to look after themselves. Mr. J. O'Brien (Government, Westland) : Tell us how you would do it. Mr. Holland said that the amount the country could afford for these services was a subject on which there was room for discussion. One of the most remarkable features of the debate had been the anxiety of the Minister in charge'of the Bill (the Hon. W. Nash) to close the debate down. Last week, on one day, he rose on six occasions to close the debate. Why? The Government had insisted that the Opposition .should put up man for man in spite of the fact that it was outnumbered by three to one. The reason was that lor every time the last speaker on the Opposition side of the House had made his contribution to the debate the Government had 25 or 30 members who could speak, and the Opposition was denied the right of reply to those speakers. The Minister of Education (the Hon. P. Fraser): Brilliant idea! "LEFT WING" GETS MAJORITY. Mr. Holland said that the Government preferred to explain the measure from the platform; it would find it easier to do that than to answer criticism. The Opposition's job was to exj amine the implications, and the most important of all was finance. No measure had excited so much public interest, none had had so much claimed for it, and none had cost its sponsors so much embarrassment. Mr. Holland traced the delay in the formulation of the Government's election proposal, and referring to the Government-caucus on it earlier in the year, he said that the leaders of the "Left Wing" had been able to get a majority in caucus and their method of finance was to supply it from the public credit. The policy of the "Left Wing" was "pensions with printed purchasing: power." Why should they tax the' people when they could print that purchasing power? "Why was not the Bill in charge of the Minister of Health?" asked Mr. Holland. "He is too orthodox. It would have made it too embarrassing for the Deputy Leader of the House, and the responsibility was accepted by the much more dashing and reckless Minister of Finance." Mr. Holland said that in the finish the only way was to refer the Government's proposals to a Parliamentary Select Committee, on which the Opposition was represented by Mr. H. S. S. Kyle, the Hon. J. G. Cobbe, and the speaker. It was plain from the first day of the meeting of the Committee that the Opposition was to be given no say on the Committee. If the Government members wanted witnesses they were called without reference to the Opposition members. The Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon. W. E. Parry): Did you ask for any you did not get? TWO WITNESSES REFUSED. Mr. Holland: Yes. I am glad the Minister has asked that question. We asked for three, and were refused two —the head of the Treasury and the head of the Labour' Department, There could have been no reason for those officers not being called. The public had a right to draw their own deductions. The Government had something to hide. He went on to say that the State was spending £5,000,000 a year on unemployment, and the Opposition members wanted to make some inquiries. When they were refused witnesses and complained, they were told, "You have your witnesses." "We know that £1,500,000 was set aside for sustenance," continued Mr. Holland. "That would only give 7500 men £4 a week for a year. What was going to be done with the remaining 28,000 men? It is obvious that there is going to be a grave discrepancy, and the certain necessity for imposing further taxation for unemployment relief. The Minister has said that the cost of the scheme in the first year will be £15,000,000. I challenge the Minister to refer those figures to Treasury and to table the report of Treasury. The Government's philosophy is 'to spend your money and live on pensions.' The philosophy of the National Party is entirely one of helping and encouraging thrift. We disagree that more spending is better than more saving. Thrift is an attribute that has built up a free and industrious people. Today thrift is

sneered at and penalised in every direction." CHANGE OF NAME. Mr. Holland said the Government seemed to place a value on a change of name. The old age pension had been altered to superannuation, but it was not allowed to get away with that term and so the name was changed again to "benefit." He had no hesitation in saying that the 8d in the £ wages tax was much to be preferred to the Is in the £ social service contribution. For the first year the superannuation proposals were to. cost £600,000, but there was no information as to the cost after that. He asked whether the superannuation plan had been submitted to Mr. Maddex, and if so would the Government table the report. If the plan had not been submitted the Minister should give the' reason for withholding it. New taxes would have to be imposed to meet the huge cost of the scheme and new classes of taxpayers roped in. It was I strange how silent the Minister had been in respect to this important phase of the problem. Womer; and children would be asked to contribute from their meagre earnings for the first time. Mr. A. G. Osborne (Government, Manukau): They had to in 1931. Mr. Holland said that if Mr. Osborne was right, then he had no doubt that the Labour Party opposed such taxation. It had been said that the scheme was "applied Christianity" and the member for Manukau subscribed to that philosophy. "It is applied lunacy," added Mr. Holland, "to commit the country before the income is assured." The country was entitled to be informed as to where the money was to come from. The Minister in his second reading speech had juggled with dexterity. He (Mr. Holland) contended that at least an additional £3,500,000 would be required for unemployment relief, which would make the scheme for the first year cost £22,000,000. The Minister in his Budget presented to Parliament this year estimated that there would be a reduction of £214,000 in revenue for the current year compared with the year ending March 31 last, but in introducing the Social Security Bill had suggested that the revenue would increase by £1,300,000. That was the way the Minister dealt with figures. In order to fix the guaranteed price for dairy produce a survey over eight or ten years had been taken. He was of opinion that the same system should have been put into operation to ascertain what the aggregate incomes of the people j would be. GENERAL, MEDICAL SERVICE. Referring to the general practitioner service, Mr. Holland said the Government was seeking to coerce the medical profession, while the National Party sought co-operation. The Government wanted to abandon the present sys- j tern, which satisfied the people and the doctors and replace it with a policy of State Socialism. The poor and needy would be in no better position under the scheme than today as far as specialist services were concerned. The medical side of the scheme would cost £3,000,000 in the first year, or £2 a head of the population. The evidence before the Select Committee was overwhelming that the scheme j would not result in improving the people's health. The standard of medical practice would definitely deteriorate under the proposals and incentive would disappear. No scheme could be considered complete without providing for specialists. The scheme was doomed to failure. The great majority of the people would prefer to make their own arrangements with the doctors. The Minister of Health: Will you vote against it? Mr. Holland: You will know soon.; enough. You will be disappointed' when you see the attitude we will take. ; ■ .■';! The question, transcended all consideration of party politics, continued Mr. Holland. Adequate social services should be provided for all .those unable to provide for themselves, but the Government's scheme was to provide for those who could afford it themselves, whether they wanted it or not. A system that would break down j with its own financial weight was not I required, and there was grave danger of this happening under the present proposals. The country should continue the present system, which had been built up over the years. As the j Social Security Bill absorbed the whole of the present pensions scheme, pensions would be endangered if the j legislation now under consideration failed.