SECURITY BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 8 September 1938, Page 13

SECURITY BILL

GOOD PROGRESS IN COMMITTEE PROVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS CONSIDER IT INMTEQ’i-'TE POSITION OF RETURNED SOLDIERS DO THE PEOPLE WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICE ? (From Our Own Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, This Day. Good progress was made by the House of Representatives yesterday with the committee stages of the Social Security Bill, and when it rose at 1.20 a.m. to-day practically all that remained for consideration was the important section dealing with the financial provisions. Though the Opposition members found plenty to criticise when it came to a scrutiny of the details, they forced the House to a division only on one occasion during the whole sitting, and that was on a motion for closure after a protracted argument about the unemployment proposals of the Bill.

At clause 49 (period for which sickness benefit is payable) Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said the clause set out that payment would be made “so long as the incapacity lasts. He suggested that such a provision would tned to prolong sickness; it was psychological. The Minister explained that the Com mission had power to transfer a recipient from one class of benefit to another. The maximum benefit for a man, his wife and nine children was £4 a week. If the benefit was reduced by half after six months the income ol such a family would be £2 a week, and that benefit would then have to be supplemented. Unless there was some doubt concerning the sickness the fullbenefit would be paid during the full period of incapacity UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Considerable discussion took place on unemployment benefits. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hamilton) said it appeared that pensions were to be paid to men out of work. It meant payment without service. He asked whether the system was to be the only means of dealing with unemployment. The Minister had already stated that the cost would be £1.500.000. How did the Government intend to finance the men who were taken from the ranks of the unemployed and placed on public works. Did the Minister intend to carry on that work out of boriowed money? It was the intention of the Government to borrow £14.000,000 for public works this year. He asked if the Public Works Fund would be used in future instead of the Employment Promotion Fund for paying men who had been placed on public works from the ranks of the unemployed. The country was out on a new venture, and he doubted whether the unemployed could be handled on £1,500.000.

The Minister: Then we should not put it through? Mr Smith: I don’t say that, but I say the main features should go through and the others should wait until public opinion is behind them. There were several aspects of the clause dealing with unemployment benefits that were not new, but the Minister was trying to create that impression, declared Mr Smith. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo): He is always doing it. Mr Smith said that some provision should be made for appeal against an employment officer making an honest mistake. ISSUES CONFUSED Mr Bodkin said he would remind the Minister that the Bill was not the first to establish social benefits. It was really a measure consolidating numerous types of pension that were in existence before the Minister took office. The Minister completely confused the issues every time he was requested to give details as to the cost of the whole scheme and where the money was to come from, because it was on the eve of the election. “It seems evident that the Minister hopes, if his party is successful, to have the opportunity of amending legislation after having deluded the electors that the benefits can quite easily be afforded,” Mr Bodkin added. “The Minister’s answeer to the hon. member for Stratford can only be interpreted as meaning that we have no unemployment policy in this country; we have a sustenance benefit and nothing more.” SAME CO-ORDINATION AS BEFORE The Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said that a person who was capable of rendering service would be provided with work by the Government that could not be provided by private enterprise. Sustenance might be necessary as a temporary provision between the time a man lost his job until he was again put into work. Was the Opposition suggesting that more sympathetic consideration was given to the unemployed under the previous Government than under the present Administration? That argument could not be supported for a moment by the facts. It did not matter what tribunal of labour might be set up, if the medical evidence said that a man was fit for work, was the tribunal to say that it knew better? Mr Bodkin: That is all abolished under this Bill. Mr Armstrong: The Employment Promotion Act as we know it now will not operate, but that does not mean that consideration will not be given in the same way as previously. If a man could afford not to accept work he could afford not to get sustenance, Mr Armstrong added. Mr Nash said that there had not been one real word against the clause, only a lot of propaganda. OPPOSITION’S ATTITUDE “We are not In the slightest difficulty over the Bill,” said the Leader of the Opposition. “We have no doubt about where we stand. There are aspects of the Bill that have been in the law for some years. You can’t expect us to vote against benefits already in the law. W’e will let the country know where we stand on the Bill without any difficulty or hesitation. The Minister can have his Bill. It is his responsibility and the Government’s and we accept no responsibility. There are some parts of the Bill that are quite good, extending benefits that have been law for years, but the financial responsibility of the Bill is the Minister’s own.” The closure was applied, the motion being carried by 49 votes to 19. TREATMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS In reply to a question raised by Mr Bodkin the Minister said that returned soldiers with the ten years’ residential qualification and also war veterans received 30s a week when they reached the age of 60. Those in receipt of a disability pension would receive another 17s 6d a week. It was not suggested that these classes of beneficiaries were not being comparatively well looked after. The benefits could not be more generous inside the existing order. “One finds it hard to understand why a person should get up and ask for more benefits and then say that I we cannot afford them,” commented I Mr Nash. “This is the first opportunity we have had of making payments to returned soldiers and war I veterans slightly better than they have | been in the past. Members of the [Government recognise that a tremendjous number of the benefits in the Bill are not as much as they consider necesI sary to provide a good standard of I living.” “Mr J. A. Lee (Government. Grey i Lynn) said it annoyed him to hear | the humbug talked about not doing j enough for the returned soldeirs. This j Bill did more than ay other measure

“A COMPLETE WASH-OUT” r Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Otago jCentral) wanted to know whether there i was discrimination to be shown between L men and women. Under the existing law it was much more difficult for a ~ woman to receive relief than a man. Was it intended to put a placement bureau in every district? Women had made substantial contributions to j the Employment Promotion Fund, and 1 the fund, as far as women were concerned, was a “complete wash-out.” c Mr Poison asked whether it was in- c tended that the Commission should take f over the whole of the Employment De- * partment. If there had to be an employment department under the legisla- c tion it was obvious that £1.500.000 would not meet the cost. The Minister 1 was too optimistic when setting that as 1 the amount required. t t BENEFITS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN > The Minister of Finance (Mr Nash) said that under the Bill the Employ- t ment Promotion Act was repealed, and ( there could be no duplication as suggested by Mr Poison. The unemployment benefits would be paid under the Social Security Bill. It was set out clearly what the qualifications were to receive an unemployment benefit. Those who did not take reasonable steps to find work or those who would not take work would be disqualified. A married woman would qualify if the Commission was satisfied that her husband was unable to maintain her. Every benefit available to a man was available to a woman. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (National. Riccarton) mentioned the case of four addicts of methylated spirits, all living together and receiving sustenance. What would be their position? The Minister said they would be attended to. They would possibly receive an emergency benefit. The Government would do everything possible for them. PEOPLE W ANT THE BILL, SAYS THE MINISTER “The point is that this is a Social * Security Bill and the people of New Zealand want this clause and every other clause to go through,” said the Minister, after several more Opposition members had criticised this clause. “The Opposition are forced I by the pressure of public opinion not s to say too much, but every now and ( then there comes their only resort ( and we find the opposition. That is \ the usual procedure.” c Mr S. G. Smith (National. New Ply- ( mouth): We are not opposed to the Bill. I I say advisedly that the financial > aspects are a nightmare to the Minister. 1 j “BREAK DOWN OF ITS OWN f WEIGHT” Referring to the requirement in clause n 51 that to receive an unemployment L benefit a man must show that he was L capable of undertaking and willing to I undertake suitable work. Mr Smith ask- j ed for a definition of suitable work. He ! said that scores of men had been squeezed off the employment register' under the present Government because j* only the officials concerned had regard- r ed the jobs available as suitable and r the men had not take the work. The public wanted the principles in the Bill, but they did not want the 1 Minister to put through a measure i that would break down of its own > < weight, said Mr Smith.

] brought before the House. Under the [Bill the widows of returned soldiers were cared for. They had not been in the past. “Yet from one end of the country to the other we hear the humbug, fostered by the Opposition, that we are doing for others what we are not doing for the soldiers.”

“LET IT BE JUST” “If we are to have this Bill, then let it be just," said Mr Bodkin. There were thousands of returned soldiers who would not receive one penny of superannuation on reaching the age of 60, because their incomes were in excess of that prescribed by the Bill. Would the Minister consider those men as a class, since he had made it compulsory for them to contribute to the superannuation fund? he asked. Mr W. J. Lyon (Government. Waitemata) said it was obvious that Mr Bodkin had no understanding of the returned soldiers’ outlook towards their indigent comrades. Ninety per cent, of returned men would want any surplus that might be available to go to the men on the lowest pension scale. BENEFITS OUTLINED The Minister said that he would recite the benefits to be provided for war pensioners and war veterans in a Finance Bill that might be introduced today. A war pensioner receiving a disability payment of 17s 6d a week or more could, by satisfying the War Pensions Board, that he could not follow normal employment, receive an economic pension of 30s a week in addition. There was an extra peyment of £1 for his wife and 10s for each child. The change proposed in the Finance Bill was the lifting of the economic pension from the present level of 25s to 30s. At present the war veteran received £1 for himself. 15s for his wife, and 5s for each child, with a maximum of £2 15s a week. The proposal in the Finance Bill would give him 25s for himself, 15s for his wife, and 5s for each child to four, with a maximum of £3 a week, but at the discretion of the War Pensions Board in special circumstances the allowance could be increased to 30s for the man and 20 for his wife, making a maximum payment with the allowance for children of £3 10s. If there was any extra money to be provided it would be provided for those on the lower levels and not for the men with £2OB a year, the Minister added. There was provision in the Finance Bill for classes of South African War veterans. FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS Mr Lee said that if a returned soldier bad a pension of 17s 6d a week at present he would receive an old age pension of 17s 6d a week as well at the qualifying age. If he had a pension of 17s 6d a week he would receive 30s- a week under the Social Security Bill, so that he would be 12s 6d a week better off, plus free medical attention, than he was formerly. If he had a wife she also would receive 30s and the total payments would be 77s 6d, as against 52s 6d under the former Government, in addition to free medical attention. Despite this, the Opposition were claiming that the Bill did not assist the returned soldier. Furthermore, the returned man and his wife on the basis mentioned would receive the 77s 6d at age 60, as against 52s 6d formerly payable at age 65. Therefore they would receive 25s more and free medical attention and would get the benefits five years earlier than previously. EARLIER RETIRING AGE Mr J. Hargest (National, Awarua) advocated the fixing of an earlier retiring age for returned soldiers. The sacrifice made by disabled men was the same whether they had money or not, and he was very sorry to see the Minister bringing class prejudice into the question of war pensions. Mr H. M. Christie (Government, Waipawa) said that a difficulty would be to distinguish between the men who had seen little active service and those who had borne the brunt of war service. Mr R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) said he thought it would be admitted that any returned man who was under fire, and particularly those who had been gassed, had a shorter expectation of life than those who had not gone overseas. He supported the claim for an earlier retiring age for returned men generally. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National. Kaipara) pointed out that it was quite possible for a man to have a worse time in his first hour on active service than others who had b'een much longer engaged. “DOWNRIGHT ELECTIONEERING” ...Mr W. P. Endean (National, Parnell) said the Bill was nothing but downright electioneering. Returned soldiers should get full benefits. Mr A. F. Moncur (Government, Rotorua): You cut his pension. Mr Endean: We cut. the pension when the economic state of the country could not stand the higher rate. Mr A. a. Richards (Government, Roskill): Who robbed the soldiers’ children. Mr Christie said he had never suggested that only the men who left New Zealand had given service during the war. Some of those who remained behind gave excellent service, and no person was capable of defining between the man who was on active service and the man who was not.. Mr Hargest said many men who never reached the line suffered grievously because of service in the army. The Minister said that any soldier who could qualify at fifty-five for the age benefit could qualify for the war veterans’ allowance, and if he was permanently incapacitated he could get invalidity benefit or emergency relief. That being so why should the age ot fifty-five be introduced? Mr D. McDougall (Independent, Mataura) said he had two sons who served through the war and who went on to land bought by the “Tory” Government. What consideration had they received? he asked. The member for Awarua had been on the Land Board and had done nothing tor them. Now he was weeping crocodile teams. “He’s only talking through his whiskers now,” he declared amid laughter. NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTORS When the new clause 63A was reached, Mr R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) asked if the clause allowed contributors to the National Provident Fund to draw from that fund and also draw the full pension. Mr Nash said the clause conserved to contributors to the National Provident Fund the benefits they were entitled to in 1926. The 1932 Act had tended to decrease those benefits and the 1935 Act

had restored those who were in the Fund before the 1932 Act was passed. The position now was that contributors would receive as much as they would have received if the pension payments operating in 1926 had been in operation to-day. They could either take the benefits under the Bill or what they had contracted for under the 1926 Act.

Mr Poison: Docj the Minister mean they can have whichever is the great est, but not both? Mr Nash: Yes. Mr Hamilton suggested the benefits were better than those provided by the National Provident Fund, and consequently the Bill would have an adverse effect on the Fund. Mr Nash said the Bill w s likely to affect new contributors to th 1 Fund.