Social Security Is Going on Statute Book, Says Mr. Savage

Northern Advocate, 19 August 1938, Page 6

Social Security Is Going on Statute Book, Says Mr. Savage

l Per Press Association. Copyright .] WELLINGTON, This Day. JJISCUSSION ON THE SECOND READING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BILL WAS CONTINUED IN THE HOUSE % OF REPRESENTATIVES YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AND EVENING. * IN THE EVENING, THE PRIME MINISTER MADE A LENGTHY SPEECH, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH HE DECLARED EMPHATICALLY THAT THE BILL IS TO BE PLACED ON THE STATUTE BOOK. THE PEOPLE, OF WHOSE VERDICT HE HAD NO DOUBT. WOULD BE ENABLED TO EXPRESS THEIR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL AT THE BALLOT-BOX.

y The debate on the second reading of the Social Security Bill was continued in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Mr P. Neilson (Government—Dune- <■ V din Central) contended that the introduction of the provisions of the Bill would lead to greater distribution and utilisation of New Zealand’s products. Dealing with the Opposition’s contention that taxpayers would have to pay for the Government’s scheme, he said there was not a social service at present being enjoyed by the country that was not being paid for by the taxpayer. Best System in World. Mr W. A, Bodkin (Opposition—Central Otago) held that it was the duty of any Government to provide the most liberal scheme of pensions that the country could afford, and the best system of health service to which the country was able to- subscribe. Members of the Government, he said, had not attempted to analyse the present medical system in the Dominion during their speeches on the Bill, and this was because, it was the best system in the world today. He also asserted that the Government was in no v/ay concerned in the improvement of the health of the people. The Bill merely indemnified sick people against loss. Mr Bodkin proceeded to criticise Labour’s policy in connection with the unemployment position, and the funds provided for it in the Bill. There was no justification, he said, for compelling people who were subscribing to Other superannuation schemes to subscribe also tb the Government’s ; scheme.

interest on the £SOO wculd be deduct'ed. He contended that the cost of the scheme would fall increasingly upon young people, because in the Dominion population, older groups were continually shewing an increase, and younger groups were decreasing. The debate, he said, had been largely confined to the back benches on the Government side of the House. The Opposition would like to hear what the front benches had to say on it. New Pensions. Mr D. W. Coleman (Government — Gisborne) said he was satisfied the old people of the Dpminion would welcome with open arms the Minister of Finance’s statement on the Bill, and the provisions that were contained In the Bill itself in relation to old-age pensions. It had been stated, he said, that the Government, I'n its term of office, had not passed any new pensions. He would remind the House that the Labour Government had been responsible for the introduction of invalidity pensions, and good as these pensions were today, they would even be further improved under the provisions in the Bill.

One Big Friendly Society. In his opinion, the Bill extended the j benefits conferred under friendly societies to all sections of the community. It would convert the whole of the Dominion into one big friendly society, but would not interfere with the friendly society system itself. Sloth Encouraged. Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Independent— Egmont) was of opinion that the Bill would discourage a man to work after the age of 60 years, and he also contended that if a man were fit and capable of working at that age, it would do neither the man himself nor the country any good if he ceased work in favour of retirement to enjoy the benefits of the Government’s scheme. He also said that the country was somewhat alarmed at the vast expenditure that would occur as a result of the introduction of the scheme, and that under the Bill the Unemployment Fund would disappear, but the unemployment problem itself would continue. Need for Doctors’ Cooperation^ The medical profession, said Mr Wilkinson, was up in arms against the scheme, and without the cordial co-op-eration of that profession there was very little chance of the scheme proving a success. He would advise the Government to lose no opportunity of coming to an amicable arrangement with the medical profession. The debate was interrupted at 5.25, when the House adjourned. When the House resumed at 7.30, the debate was continued by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, who congratulated the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Walter Nash, on his monumental work in connection with the Bill. He also congratulated those responsible for drafting the Bill, and the Press for the manner in which j an explanation of the Bill had been [ presented to the public. He contended that the right Minister was in charge of the Bill despite assertions to the contrary by the Opposition. He would at this juncture remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Bill would cost a “mighty lot of money”

Increased Old Age Pensions. If there were any necessity for the increases at all at present, it was for an increase in old-age pensions, and perhaps some other pensions, but it .. was. absolutely wrong to compel comparatively poor people to subscribe to the Government’s scheme when they ' had already made provision for superannuation for themselves. Mr Bodkin also expressed the opfn--1 ion that the Bill would prove the graveyard of the friendly society movement in the Dominion. Mr Barclay’s Views. Mr J. G. Barclay (Government— Marsden) said that the Opposition had : contended that there would no longer be any incentive to thrift and saving ? if the Bill were passed. That was wrong. It was the Government’s wish that people should continue to save and provide for themselves to some extent. Mr Barclay contended that under the Bill there would be a collective saving scheme that was far better than individual saving that had to do now. He could not see how, when the Bill was in operation, there would be overcrowding of . hospitals, as had been suggested by the Opposition. In fact, he believed hospitals would be relieved to some extent under the scheme. Inaccuracies Alleged. ■;i Mr H. G. Dickie (Opposition— Patea) '• said that the Minister of Finance’s exposition of the scheme had contained several inaccuracies, not the least of which was one that if one had £SOO in the bank he would get the full benefit of the superannuation scheme. Actually, the amount of savings bank

(Laughter). Mr Hamilton had said that the Government had promised that the social security plan would be presented without delay, but Mr Savage said he did not remember promising that the Bill would be brought down at any particular time. He would ask the Opposition, if they were elected to office at the next election, whether they would repeal the Government’s social security legislation. The present Bill, said Mr Savage, was the biggest issue that had ever been placed before the country.. Dealing with- the hospital system of New Zealand at present, Mr Savage agreed with the Opposition that it was one of the best in the world, but we had never before had a health insurance scheme such as was provided for in the Bill. There had never been a scheme of this nature in the history of the country. As a member of a hospital board for many years, he knew how free treatment in hospitals was at present, and how the hospitals had to .attempt to secure payments from their patients. He was not blaming the present system, the medical profession or the nurses, and he did not say our system was not the best in the world, but he also would not say it was not capable of improvement.

Doctors’ Co-operation. Continuing. Mr Savage said he thought the medical profession would meet the Government on the health scheme, and he gave an assurance that the Government would meet its responsibilities towards the medical profession. The Government did not want tc socialise the medical profession. He did not care about catch phrases, he said, but he wanted to get service from the medical profession. He wanted the profession to be freer than it was today, 'and ho wanted it to be paid for the services it gave. It had not been so paid in the past. The Opposition had asked what the Government would do if the medical profession struck. That was practically what the Opposition’s statements amounted to. The Government was not trying to drive the medical profession into the scheme. It was only trying to make a decent arrangement with it, and he thought the Government would succeed. Hospital Rates Relief. The Opposition had said that there would be no relief from hospital rates under the scheme, but he would point out that under the present conditions hospitals received an .average of 2/8 per patient whereas under the Government's proposals they would receive 6 - per patient. The Opposition also said that sickness could not be treated on a mass regimentation basis. What about community wards in hospitals? he asked. He wished private wards could be provided, but in this case it was only by mass action they could get best results. Best Insurance Security. There was no insurance company in the world, said Mr Savage, which could give the same security to boys and girls right through their lives than the Government was offering under this scheme. He would challenge any company to say it had a better scheme. If it had, the Government wanted it. Dealing with the cost of the scheme, Mr Savage said he knew of only two methods of raising money; one was for it to be issued by the Government and the other was by taxing the people. The Government might do a iittle of both, continued Mr Savage. He would, however, like to ask the Opposition how it proposed to raise money for its scheme. .7 No Help Given. Referring to the statement of the Opposition members of the Superannuation and Health Committee, the Prime Minister stated that the members concerned had given no assist- j ance in bringing down the committee's j report. They had done nothing in , that direction. 1

The Leader of the Opposition: It was not their job. Mr Savage: Why were they there for, then? They proceeded to bring down something which they said was their own report. Mr S. G. Holland: It was constructive criticism.

Mr Savage: I found nothing constructive in it

Continuing Mr Savage said he was prepared to stand or fall by the Government’s proposals. That was a plain statement to everyone. The Government’s policy was to assist the man who was in need. Mr Hamilton: That is not in the Bill. You are helping people who do not need it. You are helping the rich man. Mr Savage: Are you helping the proletariat? (Laughter). Only Value of National Wealth. Proceeding, Mr Savage said there was no use talking about national wealth unless they could use it for national purposes. The Government wanted to give the people of this country what they were capable of producing. If the money system got in the way, or the people who ran it, then what should he say? He would say, “Go home and be a good boy” (Laughter).

“The Job Will Be Done.”

The electors had given the Government a mandate to do the job, and nothing on earth could prevent it doing it. If the people did not agree with what the Government had done, at the next election they had a chance of saying so, but he did not believe that they did not agree.

Can New Zealand Afford It?

Mr W. J. Poison (Oppsn., Stratford) said that what the Opposition wanted to know was: Could the taxation be maintained, or could it be applied to better purpose in another direction? The Opposition was not likely to show any antagonism to helping the poor and needy, because past Governments had all striven to give more and • more social services. What they were anxious about was the financing of the proposals. The Prime Minister had asked if the Opposition would repeal the legislation if they were returned. They would certainly improve it. Government members said the people would bless the Prime Minister for bringing the scheme forward, but would they bless him if the scheme failed? Mr Poison contended that about 43.000 persons over 65 years of age who were not receiving the old age pension would have to contribute to the scheme until 1940, and would then get £lO as superannuation. The scheme would exact heavy toll to provide for people who should never be a chaz’ge upon it. Thrift Discouraged. Mr Poison wntended that there was disqualification of thrift in the measure, and he proceeded to criticise methods of taxation which the Government proposed to employ to raise the money to finance its scheme. Mr Poison also held that the farmers would get the poorest deal of all in connection with the medical service. Social services had come to stay, he said, but the Opposition would give medical benefits to those who needed

them. Panel System Criticised. The proposed panel system, he said, would tend to increase the number of patients, and people with trifling ailments would flock to doctors. Why should the medical service be singled out for socialisation? It had done good service for the country. He had been amused to see the Prime Minister’s references to the watersiders’ union and the medical profession the other day. What would the watersiders say if the Prime Minister interfered with their union as lie proposed to do with the medical profession? He would soon be told where he got off, and he would get oil’, too. Health Scheme Essential. Mr W. T. Anderton (Govt., Eden) said a universal health scheme was essential. There was no question that the people of this country had not re-

ceived the medical services they should have received. There were men and women who had not received necessary medical service because they lacked the necessary money to pay for it. One of the greatest things which the Bill did, said Mr Anderton, was to provide security for every individual in the country. Cost is Determining Factor. Mr S. G. Smith (Oppsn., New Plymouth) said the people of the country were well enough educated to know that there were no free services In the Dominion. He welcomed many aspects of the Bill, but he felt that the Government had "bitten off more than it could chew.”

The debate was adjourned at 10.30, when the House rose.