PERTINENT INQUIRIES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 April 1938, Page 8

PERTINENT INQUIRIES

THE STATE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

AMALGAMATED CHAMBERS SEEK FACTS. CONTRAST DRAWN WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. WELLINGTON, This Day. A request for elucidation of many points connected with the Government’s proposals for the national health and State superannuation scheme was made by Mr A. O. Heany, secretary of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, with which is incorporated the New Zealand Taxpayers' Association, when the Parliamentary Committe met today. Mr Heany submitted a large number of questions, including what was the amount of sibsidy the State would have to find; did the Government propose to provide the subsidy by transferring to the Social Insurance Account the existing Consolidated Fund votes for Health, Pensions and Mental Hospitals services, or by extra taxation, or by borrowing, or by any two or by all these methods; what was the estimated cost of the pension benefits and on what grounds had the Government considered 'it fair and just to compel all persons to contribute without regard to their means and then make the means test (in relation to national pensions) a barrier against their having a share in that to which they had contributed. Mr Heany said that in Britain only those below a certain income were compulsory contributors and both contributions and benefits were on flat rate. The same principles were followed in the scheme proposed for Australia, while in America.there was a limit on the income taxable. The tax was a percentage one and the pension was graduated. The New Zealand Government’s taxation proposals embraced all incomes, but disregarded the equity of granting larger pensions to compensate for the graduation in contributions.

Referring to the position of persons in existing superannuation schemes, Mr Heany said if they were required to pay a shilling in the pound tax (as well as their share, in common with other taxpayers, of the subsidies paid from the Consolidated Fund) they would at the same time have their national pension reduced or eliminated, according to the size of the superannuation allowance they would draw from the scheme at present covering them.

Referring to. health insurance, Mr Heany asked whether free hospital or sanatorium treatment for all meant (a) That patients’ fees would be paid to hospital boards from the Social Insurance Fund, (b) That local rating for hospitals and charitable aid would be abolished or (c) Would the proposed State taxation be in addition to existing rates?

BRISK PASSAGES. SOME RESENTMENT SHOWN BY MINISTERS. Whpn the chairman (the Rev A. H. Nordmeyer,) asked if there were any questions the Prime Minister (the Rt Hon M. J. Savage) said: "I think I should congratulate Mr Heany on an excellent political manifesto and leave it at that.” Mr Heany: “It was never intended as such.” The Hon W. Nash (Minister of Finance): “This is a questionnaire.” Mr H. S. S. Kyle: “A very important one.” Mr Nash: “We are asking for evidence. This is cross-examining the committee.’ Mr Nash asked Mr Heany if he agreed that people in ill-health who could not help themselves should be helped by the communtiy. Mr Heany: “Yes.” Mr Nash: “Then where is the money to come from?” Mr Heany said the Government had announced a tax. Mr Nash again asked if the sick, helpless and aged should be assisted. Mr Heany said the commercial community was at one with the Government in its desire to see social services provided. It was in favour of superannuation; but believed a non-contribu-tory scheme would break down under its own weight, while a contributory scheme would encourage thrift. Whatever scheme was brought forward, the whole matter would turn on finance. “We must cut our coat according to our cloth," Mr Heany said. Mr Nash: "If there is not enough cloth to cut a big enough coat for everyone, do you say some should get a good coat and some go short?” Mr Heany: “Certainly there should be a social insurance scheme, but surely there can be differences of opinion as to the method of finance.”