The Press THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1946. Family Allowances

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24882, 23 May 1946, Page 4

The Press THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1946. Family Allowances

A Dunedin magistrate, last week, decided that an application to have a maintenance order varied should be granted, and the maintenance allowance reduced, because the divorced wife to whom it was payable was now receiving 10s a week in family benefit under the legislation of last session. The solicitor who appeared to oppose the application argued that the legislation “made it clear” that maintenance orders “ should not be affected ”, the object being “to provide addi- " tional benefits for the children The magistrate laid it down that “ all relevant circumstances ” must be taken into account; and they included the fact that the wife was now better off by 10s a week. As it seemed that the issue and the decision were of wide importance, they were referred to the Minister of Social Security, whose reply was printed yesterday. Mr Parry said definitely that it was “not the “ intention ” of the Government, in legislating, to open the way to such decisions; and he cited the Finance Act (No. 2) of last year as evidence of the Government’s “obvious in■'tention”. Section 57 adds to Section 29 of the Social Security Act a subsection providing that the payment of a family benefit is not to have the effect of taking away or restricting any liability imposed by the Destitute Persons Act, 1910, on any person to maintain another, or of affecting a magistrate’s power to make an order “under that act” Since Mr Parry is so plain about the Government’s intention and adds that the significance of the

Dunedin decision has been “ noted ”, it may be inferred that legislative action will be considered. But two points should be made. The first is that the magistrate's decision appears to have been correctly taken, as the legislation stands; that is, with regard to the validity of the application under it. The Minister might have acknowledged as much. What legislators “ intend ” is one thing; what they write, or omit to write, in a statute may be another. Judge or magistrate must refer his decision, when he can, to the rules of the law, not to incidental dicta of the politicians who frame them. The Minister’s reference to the Finance Act plainly goes against him; for if Section 57 is read as evidence of .the Government’s “ obvious intention ” —and there can be no better evidence—there is

only one way to read it. It relates that intention explicitly tq the operation of one act, and leaves the Divorces and Matrimonial Causes Act unaffected. The second point is that the Government should think

twice before extending the effect of Section 57. The magistrate’s observation, that he must consider “ all relevant circumstances ”, is a sound one. If a maintenance order is fixed in the first place with due regard to all the relevant facts—the husband’s means and the wife’s, primarily—there appears to be no good reason why it should not be reconsidered and, as equity may suggest, be varied, if the benevolence of thfe State introduces a new and relevant fact. Where family benefits are most needed and most conscientiously used, they will not fail to ease the financial difficulties of a husband while they ease those of a wife. It is a very doubtful proposition that an absolute exception should be made, whatever the relative circumstances

may be, when husband and wife are parted and the maintenance of child or children is provided for by an order.