The Waipawa Mail FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1938. A DIP INTO HISTORY

Waipawa Mail, Volume LXVI, Issue 142, 26 August 1938, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1938. A DIP INTO HISTORY

JTNDEAVORING to meet in advance financial arguments against the Social Security Bill, the Minister of Finance quoted similar arguments used against the Seddonian old age pensions legislation by “the Conservative Party, the Tory Party, the same people as those over there.” Mr Nash’s quotations did not cover the whole ground, for the opposition to the old age pension was not solely, or even mainly, on grounds of financial prudence. The Opposition case, submitted by Mr William Rolleston, a Conservative ex-Minister, in an amendment, attacked the bill on three grounds: (1) That it failed to give substantial relief without inflicting the stigma of poverty; (2) that it did not separate the industrious and deserving from the thriftless and undeserving; and (3) that it should be remodelled to provide contributory pensions and the State supplementing of earned annuities. If the Opposition of to-day is (by political lineage) to be linked with the Conservatives of 1898, it has ltitle reason to be ashamed of the principles thus set out. In fact, Labor’s own advocacy of universal contributory pensions (of which only the token payment proposal now remains) admits the validity of the greater part of the Conservative argument. But if it be profitable to examine party pedigrees and visit the alleged sins of political fathers upon the children why stop at the third or fourth political generation ? It may be convenient at the moment for the Labor Government to claim descent from Seddon and link the Opposition with the critics of 1898. But why not go further back? As Mr Dickie reminded the House, it was Major Atkinson who first proposed a national superannuation Af ew Zealand. He was a Conservative, but his liberal proposals for sick pay, universal superannuation, and generous widows ’ pensions (contributory and State endowed and subsidised) were con-

demned by the Liberals of the day. Sir George Grey declared the scheme was a blow at Christianity itself. It will sap the independence of the people so relieved. It will sap the relations between the different members of a family; it will sap the feelings of a Christian brother towards his Christian brother. It will sap the feelings of children to their parents.

It was Communistic. “I say that the worst Communist in France never came forward with a proposal of this nature,” said Sir George. If there is to be continuous descent in the Liberal line, and Labor claims the “mantle of Seddon,” Mr Nash must surely accept also Sir George Grey’s denunciation of Major Atkinson’s proposal and allow the credit for that plan to rest with the Nationalists. Or would Labor now like to claim a little of the Conservative pedigree and any part of the Conservative garb which it thinks would match the Seddon mantle?