HEALTH SCHEME

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 89, 12 October 1938, Page 28

HEALTH SCHEME

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' LOSS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The Hon. Mr. Lee Martin, chosen, no doubt, as Minister of Friendly Societies because of many j years' experience in a New Zealand' society, during which he occupied its highest office, recently alleged that the societies are now merely commercial institutions, i.e., that the old fraternity and benevolence has gone. Also that the negotiations of the societies' leaders with the Government representatives are confidential, and that members must ask them, and not him, what the Government's intentions are towards the societies. And how, Sir, can the society representatives do that They can relate what transpired, and how very little resulted, but the intentions, unless the Government chooses to state them categorically, are another matter entirely.

National health proposals were in the Labour Party pre-election programme in 1935, and though the Prime Minister did not disclose his cast iron plan till the advent of the Nordmeyer Parliamentary Select Committee, looking back it can be seen that this plan had long been determined on, even if not actually drafted into form as embodied in the Social Security Act. Otherwise how could Mr. J. A. Lee predict its trend in his recently apparently prematurely published book? As a matter of fact, about the time the Dr. McMillan 1936 committee commenced its inquiries, the farce played over the past three years, one or two M.P.s in the south let the cat out of the bag as far as the Friendly Societies were concerned by stating that in future they would become mere social bodies, because there would be nothing left in connection with health and sickness for them to do. That then was apparently the Government intention, and if the Act goes into force as it is on April 1 next, who will say the intention will not have been fully achieved in a couple of years thereafter. "Slow strangulation won't be in it, but "rapid decline" wilL

Many active members, whose experience and service is equal and better than that of Mr. Lee Martin, remain to contradict his jeer that the societies have become mere commercial institutions, or even mere beneficial ones, and his statement that the negotiations of the societies with the Government, or more properly of the Government with the societies, are confidential is on a par. Certainly actual conversations are, but the results (?) have been published in Mr. Nash's letter of August 25 to the Dominion Council, which immediately appeared in your columns.

And now; let us see what these negotiations have been. Society representatives gave evidence before the McMillan Committee, when in the light of experience the plan was already cast iron, though not disclosed, and, visualising a contributory scheme of health insurance and superannuation on British lines, offered full co-opera-tion. . They also gave similar evidence before the Nordmeyer Parliamentary Select Committee. On each occasion the Dominion Council, comprising delegates from the central bodies or Grand Lodges of the societies, had prior discussions in the light of the meagre information available. The 1938 annual meeting of the council had been fixed for August 23, and its executive were invited, to meet Messrs. Nash, Fraser, and Lee Martin to discuss the Bill, on August 22, and to return on August 24 and continue discussion, the result being embodied in Mr. Nash's letter of August 25 aforesaid. On August 23, after politically rejecting three other more adverse motions, the following motion was adopted, and this and other items referred to in this paragraph are embodied in the printed report issued recently to the constituent bodies, so there is nothing confidential about it at aIL

Resolved: "That while giving our general support to the humanitarian intentions of the Government as expressed in the Bill, we must express disappointment that the offer of cooperation made by the friendly societies has not been more freely availed of, particularly in the direction of servicing the sickness and medical benefits to the general public and the arrangement of medical service to our own members, and respectfully suggest:—

"1. That sick pay made by friendly societies be exempted from the tax of Is in the £.

"2. That section 10 (6) shall include sick pay paid by friendly societies (but shall not apply when a member is receiving compensation under the Workers* Compensation Act).

"3. That provision be made in the Bill for the representation of friendly societies on any appropriate tribunals set up under the Bill."

The Bill is now "the Act,'" and the societies lose their most attractive avenue, the servicing of medical, hospital, and chemist benefits for their members and dependants. They are given the right of servicing the Government sickness benefit for their own members, i.e., for dad, mum, and the children under 16, members meaning those coming within the ambit of the Friendly Societies Act, i.e., those subscribing for funeral and/or sick benefit. They may be permitted to service similarly their honorary or associate members, and elder children not belonging to societies for health or financial reasons, if so subsequently provided in the regulations. Those few members who have some income during sickness are permitted a means test limit of £5 against £4 for nonmembers. Funeral benefit is not liable to the social security tax, but lodge sick pay is, unless subsequently exempts. Ed by Order in Council. Much has been made by some politicians of the societies' entrance medical examination, and that some could not, and many do not, join. But the fact remains that the examination is not a drastic one, that means could be found for handling those who "could but do not," and those "who would but cannot," and that, all in all, the societies have obviously been "sold a pup."—-I am, etc.,

F.S. MEMBER.