PARLIAMENT CAPITALISATION OF FAMILY BENEFIT

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28702, 27 September 1958, Page 14

PARLIAMENT CAPITALISATION OF FAMILY BENEFIT

House Split On Home Ownership Bill (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 26. Sooner or later, there would be a clamour to return to some form of continuing income from the family benefit, said Mr F. L. A. Gotz (Opposition, Manukau) in the House of Representatives during the second reading debate on the Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Bill. The legislation authorises the capitalisation of children’s benefits up to a total of £lOOO to provide a home for the family. . T*? e Prime Minister (Mr Nash) listed six priorities in the scheme for capitalisation and said there would be no income bar in general. Need would be the determining factor. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holyoake) said the fundamental principle of the family benefit had been violated. The time a home was needed was when a child was born, not necessarily a year afterward. Government speakers argued that the- measure would help relieve the housing shortage and the Opposition contended that those who saved would be treated less favourably than those who did not. . Th'e debate, which was interrupted by the adjournment at 4.35 p.m., lasted all day. It will be resumed at 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.

Mr C. G. E. Harker (Opposition, Hawke’s Bay) said the bill was a complete departure from the principle of the original scheme. The change was not in the best interests of the child Often today, the benefit w'as used for educational purposes or, in the weekly payments, for the welfare of the child. Now the child must share the benefit with its mother and father,, brothers and sisters and. perhaps, other relatives. There were also anomalies arising from the possibility of a child dying before the debt was liquidated. Further, parents whose need might be great for personal reasons, could be excluded because of some small financial margin. People who had made sacrifices early in life would also suffer in comparison with others

Mr N. J. King (Government. Waitemata) said the Opposition x-v .was trying to deny to mothers the right to capitalise the family - benefit.

Mr Gotz said the Opposition having looked into the mouth of a gift horse, did not like what --4 t saw. The bill might appeal to some; but, sooner or later, there would be a clamour to re- - -turn to some form of continuing income from the family benefit It was obvious the Government ~ was finding another means of giving preference to one section of fhe community. It could be that the Government was departing from its adherence to the State rental house scheme because' ci the high cost factor involved. Houses with Jobs Mr N. E Kirk (Government Lyttelton) said the goal of home ownership was worthy of achievement, and the bill would assist many parents of children to accomplish that ahn. NJr Kirk said there were a great number of people Living in rented homes which were tied to em- - ployment. This was particularly true in the country. Many State tenants wanted to own their homes There were dozens of reasons why these people wanted - homes but did not have them, and it was not necessary to suggest that improvidence was the cause. f

The Government intended that -» fnembers of the Maori race should have a full share in the benefits pf the bill. Money, would not be advanced on any home which was not jointly owned Penalty on Thrift Mr T P. Shand (Opposition, Marlborough) said he was opposed to the bill mainly because a man who had not made adequate savings would get assist"j ance, while a man who had saved ’ would not get assistance The natural law of z help coming to those who helped themselves was

upset by the bill. - Today, family allowances com- , ine in weekly could make all the difference between poverty and managing to get by with care .and discretion. The bill should also be criticised because it was _ another example of the timehonoured method of taking power ’by regulation to achieve the obset out in legislation The method had nothing to commend “ jt Mr Nash said there were six priorities in the capitalisation plan They were the building of a home.

the purchase of a new unoccupied home, alterations or additions to existing homes, the reduction of a mortgage, the repayment of a 'mortgage, and the purchase of a section

' Lump sum loans would become . available a year after the birth of a child, and loans would not interfere with existing mortgages Advances would be determined by regulation and priorities by need There would be no income bar m general and need would be the determining factor. The source of the loans would be the Social Security Fund and they would be administered by the State Advances Corporation. . Should the parents of a child leave New Zealand, or the child die, the unliquidated portion of the advance would become a debt. The drafting of the regulations would be as important as some of the clauses in the bill itself. Mr Nash added that there might be some argument that the bill was not in accord with the family benefit, but nothing could be more beneficial to a child than a home Election Promise

Mr Holyoake said the fundamental principle of the family benefit had been violated because JL % reC .sl?? s elect ’ on promise, wu* the election promise had been so heavily modified that it bore

little resemblance to the original in which there were no bars. The listed priorities were sound but the country’s funds were al most fully committed already. The amount of money required might not be available and there could be terrific pressure on the country’s finances. The powers required by regulations meant giving a blank cheque for an unspecified amount of money year bv year.

Mr Holyoake said it had never been conceived that the family benefit should be made available in one lump sum. A fundamental change was being made. The Minister of Housing (Mr Fox) said the bill had been decided on because there were literally thousands who could not afford to buy their own homes. The family benefit was designed to assist parents bring up their families. The scheme would benefit those paying exorbitant rents Mr W B. Tennent (Opposition Manawatu) said that over 16 years the family benefit would return £624, but its loan value under the bill was only £5OO.