SECURITY PLAN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 103, 4 May 1938, Page 7

SECURITY PLAN

‘IMPRUDENT FINANCE” CASE FOR FARMERS’ UNION THE DANGER OF INFLATION [ Per Pr«M /.Mociation. ) WELLINGTON, May 3. The conviction that to proceed with the superannuation scheme ' along the lines of the present proposals would be imprudent financially, and that the prospect of a possible £15,000,000 increase in general taxation at some future time was a possibility whicn could not be viewed other than with the gravest misgivings was expressed by the Dominion President of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union (Mr W. W. Mulholland) in a statement which was presented to the Select Committee on National Health and State Superannuation to-day. In reference to the national medical service, the Farmers’ Union advocated that the scheme should be controlled by a board consisting mainly of representatives of hospital boards and medical practitioners, with representatives of other sections of the community, that the funds should be vested in the board, that the principle of the scheme should be that of individual and family health insur- | ance, and that contributions should be universal and the benefits available to all contributors. , Mr Mulholland said the attitude 01 the union was expressed in the fol- : lowing resolution carried at the an- ' nual conference: —“That the Government be asked to introduce a national scheme to cover sickness and old age which shall be (1) nation, (2) aduic (3) contributory, (4) absolutely protected.” The Farmers’ Union strongly supported a universal contributory superannuation scheme. By a superannuation scheme he meant a scheme into which the beneficiaries paid a sufficient sum in contributions year byyear so that their payments, together the interest earned, provided a sufficient fund from which the benefits could be paid. They accrued to the beneficiary by right and were his property—he having provided the fund by which they were established. Not a Superannuation Plan. “The Farmers’ Union,” declared Mr Mulholland, “is profoundly disappointed at tile Government’s proposals for national superannuation. The proposals are not lor superannuation al all, but arc proposals to provide fin ance to pay pensions on a considerably increased scale and on a much wider basis to various members of the community, including the relief of unemployment by the payment of sustenance. A number of these proposals will have the effect of keeping in idleness people who are physically well able to provide for themselves, if this were done at the expense of their own earlier savings there could be no objection, but the proposals are that it be done at the direct expense of the earning section of the commujty. “The proposal that a large share of the finance shall be provided by the Consolidated Fund (estimated by Mi ■ Maddox at nearly £10,000,000, out ot approximately £18,000,000 for the first year for the combined health and pension scheme) means that the n.\in burden of the scheme is going to fall upon those sections of the community already suffering from the increascu cost of living, namely, those breadwinners with a number of dependants. If the Arbitration Court takes the cost of living as its guide in making awards some of these will, it is true, be able to pass these Increased cost? on by obtaining increases in wages. Industry in turn will pass them on in increased costs of products and services until they reach the producer I for export. He is unable to pass them any further, and will consequently have to shoulder the burden.” Prime Minister’s Comment. ‘The Government is going lo put its health and pensions proposals into effect during the coming session. They tell us we are going too fast and too far. 1 didn’t come down in the last shower. It seems to me we haven i gone very fast. I don’t think 30s a week is too much for the men and women who helped to build this country,” said Mr Savage, during tne cross-examination following the presentation of the Farmers’ Union case. “I didn’t say a shilling in the pound on income was the last word at ail, - ’ Lhe Prime Minister continued. “I was accused by the Farmers’ Union in lheir statement of saying that income would rise. I didn’t say that, but I did ask the actuary if it was not reasonable to suppose that production would increase at the same if not at a greater rale as the cost of this scheme. It is up to us to see that income rises. The farmers shouldn't need to be told that. 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 ate going to kick over the traces. That s all. I am satisfied that the farmers will throw their hats into the air when this is the law of the land.’ Mr Savage, addressing Mr Mulholland, said that the Farmers' Union statement seemed to be in opposition to the scheme from beginning to end “No, not from beginning to end,” replied Mr Mulholland. “It leaves very little in favour anyway,;’ said Mr Savage. ‘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,” said Mr. Mulholland. Mr Savage: “Men who put the savings of a lifetime into their farms walked off with nothing to fall back on except the old-age pension, which we propose to lift from 22s 6d to 30s a week. Y'ou say in your statement 'a number of these proposals will have the effect of keeping in idleness people who are physically well able to provide for themselves.’ That sounds to me very much like opposition tu the whole thing. Who are the physically fit pople 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 IK at sixty,” Mr Mulholland replied. Mr Savage said the Government's plan would not compel anybody to knock off at sixty. Guaranteeing a man and his wife £3 a week was the greatest insurance offering in the

world to-day. The Government wanted to go the whole distance, but that would cost between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. “What is the use of talking about being our brother’s Kicp r unless we are prepared to put our words into deeds?” asked Mr S wag • “These things can and wih be c wn d out.” Earlier Statement Denied. “I am accused in the newspapers of saying it doesn’t matter w-hat the committee says, we are going to put the scheme into operation. J 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 rvn than in the past. If this committee can help us we will be glad, but v.e are not going to allow anyone to c top us. We have lhe authority of the people to do that.” Mr. Kyle: “I thought you had authority to abolish lhe sales tax.” Mr. Savage: “I had nothing to do with that. The hon. gentleman who foolishly interjects was responsible for the sales tax.” The Prime Minister went on to say that the Government had to decide what they could pay with New Zealand's production. ‘We have got to think whether it is possible lor us to continue to increase that production. We say we can and that we are not going to be harnessed to the chariot wheels of other countries financially." Mr. Mulholland said he did not se< how the Government’s scheme wa, going to get over the impact oi « slump. Mr. Savage: “This won t g c/ef it alone. W’e have other things to Ed considered too. The money system of the future will have to find its way into different pockets or more Inta the pockets of the poor than in the past. Our mission is among th* poor.” Mr. Nash said the Farmers’ Union statement was the greatest antidocument he had ever -cad. Mr. Mulholland said that all th* farmers were concerned about was to sc2 that the proposals were kepi within the bonds of economic possi- ’ bilities.