SOCIAL SECURITY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 4 May 1938, Page 8

SOCIAL SECURITY

MEETING THE COST MONEY SYSTEM OF FUTURE CHANGE FROM ORTHODOX METHODS INDIC ATED l United Press Association J WELLINGTON. This Day. “Don't try to harness us to orthodox methods, because we are going to kick over the traces.” declared the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, when discussing the cost of the social security plan with Mr W. W. Mulholland, president of the New' Zealand Farmers’ Union, at yesterday's sitting of the special Parliamentary Committee. Mr Savage said that the credit of the country should reflect a money system that would at least equal the value of production, and that there would have to be a more equitable distribution of income in the future than in the past. The Prime Minister’s remarks were made after the case for the Farmers’ Union had been presented. Mr Mulholland’s main contention was that all that the farmers were concerned about was to see that the Government's proposals were kept wuthin the bounds of economic possibilities. Mr Savage: You seem to make a good deal of the time allowed for consideration of these proposals. I think it is just about a month since they were broadcast. Mr Mulholland: You are referring to your statement. Well, sir, it is a pretty bold statement on which to base a case. "No one has added or taken much away from it,” said Mr Savage. "We gave a definite indication as to how the money was to be raised. It is true the aggregate amount was not available for a time, but everyone knew what the proposals involved and how the money was to be raised. I think the Farmers’ Union could have started right away like other people. We would be here forever if we waited for everybody. We are not built that way—we are going on. Now I wonder would the farmers object to the old age pension being raised from 22s 6d to 30s a week?” Mr Mulholland: That would depend on the conditions involved. Supposing we did nothing but lift the pension to 30s a week, would your members object?—"l have no authority to say one way or the other.” FARMERS AND DEPRESSION Your statement seems to be in opposition to the scheme from beginning* to end.—“ No. not from beginning to 1 end.” It leaves very little in favour, anyway. How many farmers who walked off their properties during the depression would have been glad to get £3; a week for themselves and their wives? I know a few.—“ Yes. I do. too.” Men who put the savings of a lifetime into their farms walked off with nothing to fall back on, except the oldage pension, which we propose to lift from 22s 6d to 30s a week. You say in your statement "a number of these proposals will have the effect of keeping in idleness people who are physicall well able to provide for themselves.” That sounds to me very much i like opposition to the whole thing. Who are the physically fit people that we are going to keep in idleness? We don't want to see any of them idle.—“ There are a lot of people still fit at 60.” It is not necessary for anyone to retire at 60, but you will agree, I think, that a lot of men are old at 60. Our plan doesn't compel anybody to knock off at 60. This thing guarantees a man and his wife a pension of not less , than £3 a week, and that is the greatest insurance offering in any country in the world to-day. We want to go the whole distance, but are you aware that to do that would cost somewhere between £8.000.000 and £9.000.000 "What do you mean by the whole distance?” To make it universal. I think there is any amount of room for difference about the scheme, but there can be no difference about the need for doing something.—"We don’t object to the pension.” You didn't sound to be enthusiastically in support of it—“lt is one thing to : support a scheme and another to say j if it can be carried out.” "PROTECTING THE POOR” "What is the use of talking about being our brother's kceppr unless we are prepared to put our words into deeds and actions?” added Mr Savage. "These things can and will be carried out. I am accused in the newspapers of saying that it doesn't matter what the committee says, we are going to put the scheme into operation. I have never said anything like that. I have said we are going to protect the poor people of this country and that we are going to give them a better run than 1 in the past. If this committee can help us we will be glad, but we are not going to allow anyone to stop us. We have the authority of the people to do that." Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition. Riccarton): I thought you had authority to abolish the sales tax? Mr Savage: I had nothing to do with that. The honourable gentleman who foolishly interjects was responsible for the sales tax. The Government, added Mr Savage, was going to put its proposals into effect during the coming session. "You won't blame us for that. I am sure,” he said, addressing Mr Mulholland. “They tell us we are going too fast and too far. I didn't come down in the last shower. It seems to me we haven’t gone very fast. I don't think 30s a week is too much for men and women who helped to build this country. The pace doesn't seem to be a cracker after all. It looks to me to be an insult almost to the people who built this country. I didn’t say Is in the £1 on in-1 come was the last word at all. You accused me in your statement of saying that income would rise. I didn't say I that, but I did ask the actuary if it' was not reasonable to suppose that pro- i duction would increase at. the same, if I at not a greater, rate as the cost of this 1 scheme. HATS IN THE AIR "It is up to us to see that income rises. The farmers shouldn't need- to be told that. Mr Mulholland. Income!

should be a reflection of production, but it never has been. We have come into power to make it that. Don't try to harness us to orthodox methods, because we are going to kick over the traces. That's all. I am satisfied the farmers will throw their hats into the air when this is the law of the land. If the average farmer felt that it didn't matter a continental what price butter was. he and his wife would be sure at least of £3 a week, wouldn't he be in a better position than before?” Mr Mulholland: We want something ; better than that. | It is not a bad beginning, is it?— s 'We pay our men more than that.” "We are trying to do something for everyone, the farmer included," said Mr Savage. "If this scheme had been • m operation during the depression no • one would have stood to gain more than 1 the poor wretches who had to walk 1 off their farms. If they had had this ■ to fall back upon it would have been ; a big relief to a lot of them. I don’t want to meet anyone who will tell me 30s a week is too much for a man who helped to build this country. | "We have got to decide now what we can pay with New Zealand's production,” continued Mr I Savage. "We have got to think | whether it is possible for us to continue and increase that production. We say we can. We say also that we are not going to be harnessed to the chariot wheels of other countries, financially. We say that as long as we can produce the goods and services in New Zealand we have the power of government to make them available to the people, and this is an attempt to do that. We are not going to be harnessed to the old orthodox methods at all. That's all.” j ( Mr Mulholland: lam afraid I don’t quite see how this is going to get j i over the impact of a slump. j Mr Sav’age: This won’t get over it j alone. We have other things to be j considered, too. We already control ' the credit of this country. You know ! that, Mr Mulholland. The ci-edit of 1 ■ our country should reflect a money ! system that will at least equal the ! : value of our production, and it will be ! j our job to see that that happens and to i see that the distribution of production is more equitable in the future. That i means that the money system of the < future will have to find its way into 1 : different pockets or more into the poc- < kets of the poor than in the past. Our 1 1 mission is among the poor, and we are ' following a pretty good example. How- ' ever, I won't argue with you, Mr Mul-!' holland. I think I will leave it at that. ! 1 The Minister of Finance. Hon. W. ! Nash, said that the farmers’ statement ' was the greatest anti-document he had ! 1 ever read. • Mr Mulholland said that all they ! were concerned about was to see that ‘ the proposals were kept within the 1 .! bounds of economic possibilities, j Mr Nash: Do you think the Gov- ! ernment should allow people to hold 1 £750 a year while some citizens get ] less than £SO a year? J Mr Mulholland: I am not prepared ! j to answer that question. Mr Nash: No section of the com- ( munity ought to have more than is \ necessary to keep a decent home while , invalids are living on £ 1 a week. , Mr Mulholland: I agree'with that. ] "Very well. then, you would support , the invalidity pension,” said Mr < Nash. Mr Mulholland was questioned by * other members of the committee. e