SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 229, 26 August 1938, Page 9

SOCIAL SECURITY DEBATE

A PROLONGED DISCUSSION ATTITUDE OF OPPOSITION Two Ministers —Hon. W. E. Parry and Hon. H. T, Armstrong—took part in the debate on the social security legislation in the House of Representatives, yesterday. Defending the measure, they contended that individual citizens had a responsibility towards the general community. Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates and Mr S. G. Holland, who closely examined the Bill, referred to the financial provisions. Mr Coates said that an additional ten millions would be required in new taxation in the first year of the scheme. Both declared that the Opposition was in favour of a health service, but it must be based on sound finance.

I MEASURE DEFENDED

ON ETHICAL GROUNDS. SHARING OF BENEFITS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Aug. 25. The debate on the second reading of the Social Security Bill was continued in the' House of Representatives this afternoon. Rev. C. L. Carr said the Opposition was fond of saying that the new legislation would nullify the benefits of the present old age pension system. They could be reminded that, “time marches on, and time makes previous good uncouth.” It was the Government’s claim that the new proposals were superior to those embodied in any legislation dealing with pensions that previously had been placed on the Statute Book.

Mr Carr added that he' considered the Bill to be justified on the grounds both of ethics and economics. The present system of individual saving was unsound, grasping, and selfish. Community saving was the sound, sane, and kindly way of providing for the future. A system which forced one person to save at the expense of another was demoralising for the individual and impoverishing to the community. The Government had found a way of saving the people’s money and of providing them with benefits in which all could share. OPPOSITION’S ATTITUDE. Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said it appeared that the Government assumed immediately that the Opposition was opposed to making provision lor those who had fallen sick by the wayside or the aged. That was totally incorrect, as had been demonstrated by the actions of past Governments, and lie proceeded to draw attention to a national superannuation report which had' been brought down in 1935. The Opposition, he continued, was willing, ready and keen to evolve a system that would help those who needed it both in sickness and when old age overtook them. It was important, however, tha tthey should have a foundation for such a scheme which had been carefully laid. They were now considering a Bill which would not come into force until April 1 next year. Why, he asked. Was it the idea of the Government that if the Government were returned at the next election it intended to modify the scheme?

The Minister of Finance (Hon. W. Nash): Why not talk of possibilities? Mr Coates continued that it might also he the Government’s idea that if it were ousted at the election the Government would then say of the next Administration that it had altered the Bill. Was not the measure becoming, a political stalking horse, he asked. What the Opposition was concerned about was that in the future as long as people contributed to a scheme they should receive the benefits which the Bill provided. Mr Coates proceeded to ask the Minister of Finance if lie had received a report from the Treasury Department on the Government’s proposals and said the country was entitled to the information which was contained in the report of the Minister who had received it. He would also ask if the Bill was the original one which had been presented to the Labour caucus by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

Mr Nash: It is the only one that has ever been prepared. . Mr Coates: I think when they took it to the caucus there must have been a division of opinion on it. Mr Coates then continued to criticise the financial aspects of the Bill, stating that there was a difference of £8.500,000 between the estimated cost of the scheme according to the British actuary (Mr G. H. Maddex) and the Minister of Finance’s estimate. Mr Coates also asked if the medical men were prepared to come in and co-oper-ate with the Government on the scheme. The medical men were entitled to consideration, he said, and he would ask if they were getting it. He was sure that doctors would do their best to try to be reasonable and assist a scheme they thought could he carried through.

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Hon. W. E. Parry) said there had been a lot of talk about the need for financial soundness, but the existing superannuation schemes had been 6haky during the degression. Replying to Mr Coates’s question regarding advice by departmental officers, Mr Parry said the Government had made full use of its officers, but when a policy was decided upon the Government must take full responsibility for it. The Minister proceeded to what the Government had done for pensioners since it assumed office. During the three years there had been a total increase in the pensions bill of £2,613,000. he 6aid. There was one painful aspect of the debate which had been played up to by the Opposition, and that had been the references to young people. The Opposition had said it wa6 monstrous for persons of 16 years of age to make a contribution to the scheme. Was it the desire of the Opposition to see young men and women repudiate their own fathers and mothers? Young people were called upon to make a contribution to the scheme for the future, and in view of the consideration they would receive it was not out of the way to ask for that contribution. Boys and girls to-day had received as the resfilt of Labour legislation, a 60 per cent, increase in wages and were in a position to pay the contribution they were asked for. ‘The Minister added that the Government had already created a minimum wage for workers, and now it was going to create a minimum of security for those who were qualified for it.

COST OF SCHEME. Mr K. J. Hoiyoake contended that it was quite evident that the Government had laid its financial foundations . for the social security scheme on optimism. The cost of the scheme, he said, would

not be Is in the £l, as had been indicated, but would be more like 2s 6d in the £l. Speaking of the Government’s proposals to make young people from 16. to 20 contribute to the scheme, he said all avenues of new taxation were rapidly being used up and in the event of a depression he asked where the Minister would get the finance to pay for the Government’s scheme. “HUMANE LEGISLATION.”

The Minister of Labour (Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said the Government was determined to provide for all the needs of the people in this country. There was a super-abundance of the necessities of life in New Zealand, and it was the duty of the strong to assist the weak. The Government was not going to let anything stand in the way of making provision for those who were in need. The Government’s superannuation scheme was nothing more or less than humane legislation which should be embodied in the laws of every country. The Bill was not the first of the Government’s humanitarian legislation. There had been twelve planks in Labour’s platform policy which had been approved by tile people before the last election, but eleven of those planks had already been enacted into the laws of the country, and the present Bill was the last portion of the programme to be placed on the Statute Book.

Surely, Mr Armstrong said, this would be a better country to live in when we removed the fear of want among people. What had been done to remove this fear in the past? Oldage pensioners had not been completely guaranteed against it, but would receive a sense of security under the. Government’s proposals. The same applied in cases of illness. He would like the Opposition to point out the classes to whom they were opposed to the benefits of the Bill being extended. He repudiated the idea that the measure would harm private hospitals, and contended that to the contrary the Government’s proposals would place private hospitals on a hotter footing than they had been in the past. Nor, ho said, would the Bill damage Friendly Societies, which he thought»would really welcome it. PROCEDURE CRITICISED.

Mr S. G. Holland said the Opposition was not opopsed to aid being given to the sick and needy, but thought it was the duty of the State to care for them. He would state unequivocally that if the Opposition were returned to office at the next election it would neither cut wages nor pensions. He referred to the position which, lie said, had arisen during the debate in which the Government had forced Opposition members to speak on the Bill, otherwise the debate would collapse, and continued that after the last Opposition speaker had spoken there still remained some 20 or 30 Government members to take part in the debate. The Government, lie said, appeared to prefer to explain the provisions of the Bill from the platform rather than in the course of the debate in the House. Mr Holland proceeded to discuss the Government’s attitude towards the Bill in caucus, stating that the Lett Wing Labour members had secured a majority on the issue that the measure should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Ho also drew attention to the fact that the Minister mf Finance was in charge of the Bill instead of the Minister of Health. He thought the latter’s more orthodox outlook on finance had led to his colleague, who was more unorthodox and optimistic, being placed in charge of it. The Government’s outlook, he continued, was : “Spend your money and live, on a pension.” The Opposition s idea was that thrift should he encouraged. People should save their money and reduce the number of pensions to a minimum. The Government members, he said, had called the scheme “applied Christianity.” Ho would call it “applied lunacy” to subscribe to any scheme until its finances were assured. Mr Holland continued that the Government was seeking to coerce the medical profession, while the Opposition’s attitude was that it should cooperate with the profession. If the National Party were returned to power at the next election it would provide a complete medical service for those who needed it, and there would be no extra taxation to pay for it. The question of national superannuation and health insurance, he said, transcended all questions of party politics, and he contended that it would be better to be involved in a ‘ scheme of social services for which the country could pay than in one which might break down under its own weight. If the Government’s scheme did break down, he said, the whole of the previous scheme would break down with it because the pension scheme would be absorbed in the scheme. LIVING ON PRODUCTION.

Mr J. A. Lee said he objected to the suggestion made by Mr Holland that the medical profession existed primarily for the profit of the doctor.'That might be the attitude of some individual members of the profession, but as a whole the first consideration of doctors was for the health of their patients. Mr Holland had objected to the suggestion of the Labour Party that the country should live out of this year’s income, and said it would be wise to strike an average over a period of years. The Government, however, proposed to live on production, not on investments, and if production increased in future the Government was entitled to build on the foundation laid by the Bill. The person who did not assume that New Zealand’s production would increase in the years ahead had no vision for the future -of the country. Mr A. C. A. Sexton said the Bill would stand for itself and did not need anv boosting to stress its importance to “ the people of the country. Some Government members had "been rather foolish in what they had said in relation to past Governments, because most of the Bill’s provisions were based on the enactments of past Governments.

Mr H. E. Herring paid a tribute to the work done by the Parliamentary Superannuation and Health Commit-

tee, and said the whole of the Opposition’s objection to the Bill seemed to be that we could not afford it. The country had been able to pay for the war period. We had vast resources in t/ie country and should be ashamed to say we could not afford such a scheme as the Government proposed. In fact, ho considered that we could not afford not to adopt it. r The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30. JOTTINGS FROM SPEECHES. FAILURE PREDICTED. The contention that the Government’s proposed health scheme would do nothing to improve the health of the people was advanced by Mr S. G. Holland during the second-reading debate on the Social Security Bill, in the House of Representatives, last Fight. The scheme, he said, was doomed to failure. The National Party would provide a complete and adequate service for those who were unable to provide it for themselves, and leave others to make their, own arrangements. INFORMATION WITHHELD? Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said there was more than a suspicion that the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. Nash) was endeavouring to witliold from the country full information regarding the future costs of the scheme. “We are now considering a Bill which will not become law until April 1 next year,” Mr Coates said. “If the Government is returned to power, does it intend to modify the scheme before it becomes operative?”

Mr Nash: Why not talk of possi bilities ?

Mr Coates: It is quite all right if the Minister thinks it is a possibility, or even a probability, that lie will be ousted from office. COSTS AND TAXATION.

In spite of the Minister’s figures, said Mr Coates, it was clear that the cost of the entire social security scheme, with the additional benefits to wives and widows, would be approximately £18,500,000. To that sum would have to be added £3,500,000 for unemployment relief, the funds for which would disappear, making a grand total of £22.000,000. Present taxation for the services outlined in the Bill brought in £12,000,000. The increase in the wages tax would produce £3,500,000, but a similar sum would be required for unemployment purposes, leaving £3,000,000 to be obtained from the Consolidated Fund. In all, there would have to be £10,000,000 of new taxation in the first year. LIMIT REACHED. “You will be taking the marbles from the school children next,” said Mr J. Holyoake during criticism of the extension of the wages tax to everyone over the age of 16 years. He said that this extension showed that the limit of taxable capacity had been reached by the Government. POVERTY INEXCUSABLE. There is no excuse for poverty in New Zealand, and no excuse for a Government that refuses to provide for the distribution of the good things of life among the people,” said tile Minister of Labour (Hon. H. T. Armstrong). “There is a superabundance of everything we need to sustain life in New Zealand, and it is the duty of the strong to provide for the weak.” SHEEP AND GOATS. The Bill, said Rev. C. Carr, was a practical application of Christian principles. When the great Master spoke of separating the sheep from the goats He did not represent the final arbiter of human destiny as asking people what their doctrines were, what their dogmas were, what their denominations or sects were, what principles they -espoused, or what particular tenets they subscribed to. The sheep were separated from the goats on one principle and one principle only—“lnasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.” LEFT WING PRESSURE.

The accusation that pressure from the left wing of the Labour Party, had forced the Government to bring the Social Security Bill before Parliament before it was ready to proceed, was made by Mr Holland. “No measure has in this country or in any other part of the British Commonwealth caused more public interest, more anxiety, or more embarrassment to its sponsors,” said Mr Holland. PROSPECTS FOR DEBATE. Second rending speeches occupied another full day in the House yesterday. Earlier in the week there was thought to be little likelihood of tlio second reading debate on the Social Security Bill extending beyond last night at the latest but expectations that it would conclude at yesterday’s sitting were not realised. As Fridays and Tuesdays have’been reserved, for consideration of departmental estimates, the debate cannot now conclude before Wednesday. After the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. Nash), has replied to the debate the House will go into comniittec to discuss the individual clauses in tho BUI.