“APPLIED LUNACY”

Waipawa Mail, Volume LXVI, Issue 142, 26 August 1938, Page 3

“APPLIED LUNACY”

THE SOCIAL SECURITY BILL OPPOSITION CRITICISM. WELLINGTON, Last night. Speaking in the House of Representatives on the second reading of the Social Security Bill, Mr S. G. Holland (Nat., Christchurch) said the Opposition was not opposed 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 uncquivocably that if the Opposition were returned to office at the next election they would neither cut wages nor pensions. He referred to the position which, he said, had arisen during the debate, wherein the Government had forced the 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 twenty or thirty Government members to take part in the debate. The Government, he said, appeared to prefer to explain the provisions of the hill from the platform rather than in the course of debate in the House. He also drew attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance was in charge of the hill 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 idea was that thrift should be encouraged. The people should save their money and reduce the number of pensions to the minimum. Government members, he said, had called the scheme applied Christianity. He 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 co-operate with the profession. If the National Party were returned to power next election it would provide a complete medical service for those who needed it, and there would he 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 he for the better to be involved in a scheme of social services for which the country could pay, than one which might break dflwn 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 new scheme.