MATERNITY BONUS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 219, 10 May 1932, Page 7

MATERNITY BONUS

("Post" Special Commissioner) .

REDUCTION ftESENTED TENSE SCENE AROUSED IN HOUSE BY LABOUR MEMBER POLITICAL HIGHWAYMAN'S ACT

WELLINGTON, Saturday. A tense scene occurred in the House of Representatives late this afternoon when a clause of the Finance Bill effecting a reduction to £4 of the maternity bonus of £6 paid by the National Provident Fnnd was under discussion. Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East), declared: "No other body of men but a gang of politieal highwaymen would stoop to such an action." The acting-chairman of committees, Mr. W. A. Bodkin, ruled that the expression was unparliamentary, hut Mr. Semple refused to withdraw. Mr. Speaker was sent for and eonfirmed the Chairman's ruling. It was only after this action had been taken that Mr. Semple withdrew the phrase. Both Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) and Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill) emphasised that payment under the National Provident Fund was State guaranteed and that the public had joined the fund on this assumption. Reductions Recomiriended The Minister in charge of the Fund, Sir A. T. Ngata, said that the National Expenditure Commission had recommended reductions in expenditure by the Fund totalling £43,000, but this proposal would only reduce it by £12,000. The reductions were part of the general scheme of reducing fixed charges. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) : Part of the general breaking down. Sir A. T. Ngata: You can call it what you like. He said the existing contributors to the National Provident Fund were being asked to reduce their claims on the Consolidated Fund. Mr. W. Nash: Being asked? Mr. Barnard: Being compelled, aren't they? The Minister said that the maternity bonus was fixed at £6 in 1910, when the salary limit for payment of the bonus was £200. The benefits were extended to friendly societies in 1916, the maternity bonus to members of those societies being £4 and salary limit £200. In 1919 the bonus for friendly society members was raised to £6 and salary limit to £300. In 1931 it was decided to reduce the bonus in the cases of future contributors to £4 and the salary limit was decreased to £270. The proposal now was to reduce the bonus to existing contributors to £4 and the salary limit to £250. Hardly Still Affecfced It was pointed out by Sir A. T. Ngata that last year the Government put through legislation which gave considerable relief to friendly societies. No member could argue that Parliament, which had a right to give the benefits had not an equal right to make adjustments. Mr. Richards: What about those who have been paying in on the highest rates for the last thirty years? Sir A. T. Ngata: Are they affected much by the reduction in the maternity bonus? Are they still producing progeny. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) asked if the clause covered medical associations such as miners' associations. The Minister said that if these associations were registered as friendly societies, then they would be covered. Mr. Holland said that most of the medical associations were registered as friendly societies. The whole of the miners' incomes had been reduced by 20 per cent., 50 per cent., and even 75 per cent. They had suffered more than any other industry in New Zealand. The cuts which were being imposed on the maternity bonus would simpiy mean that the burden would he transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the hospital- boards, who were not in a position to carry an additional burden. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) said that if a reduction was to be made in a State guaranteed fund in this manner, then money in the Post Office Savings Bank was not safe. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart : That is a very dangerous thing to say. Tll say it again," declared Mr. Jordan. "The GoVernment invjtes people to put money in the National Provident Fund and it guarantees payment, but now it says that, notwithstanding its guarantee, it does not need to pay it. The same might happen with the Post Office. I'll say it in this Honse; I'll say it in public meetings and I'll say it from the roof tops if need be." Replying to the Minister of Finance, who said that the stability of the fund was guaranteed by the State, not the payments, Mr. Jordan asserted that the benefits from funds were guaranteed. He urged that the clause be held up and thoroughly gone into. Mr. Semple described the clause as "another step in the great betrayal." He said that it was breaking a "sacred contract with the mothers of the nation,"