FAMILY BENEFIT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 84, 6 October 1944, Page 7

FAMILY BENEFIT

INCENTIVE. TO WORK

OPPOSITION^CRITICISIVI

Theiclainj that in some cases the present tainily "benefit's Scheme under the Social, Security Act providing for an allowable income of up tp £5. .10s reduced thtr incentive to work was made.; by rmembers ot thquQpiLOSifwn during discussion of the Social Security Estimates in the House of Representatives yesterday. , ;/ .' ::t H; Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) suggested that it should be insisted upon that the payment'of the family benefit of 10s a week.rfpr each child should be conditional"*uporr the father .working if he was ' ,pljy§ically able to do'so. There were, cases, very rare, he admitted, where fathers of large-; families, because there ; was, a substantial sum "coming '"into the Tiome thtough> family benefits, were very dilatory.. in. seeking employment and were-not at" all ■disturbed If' they were unemployed if or a fey/ weeks prevjen a mphth; or-two.. That Tsind of tljing completely defeated -'the- intentions -oi the:: Government in jnaking^ .social security available, for the "object'-.'-of the family benefit': was to Jeriatde children to receive the treatment and the standard of living to which the State considered they were entitled. Mr. J. Acland (National, Temuka) said that apparently members of the Government did not want to help the family man receiving between £6 and £10 a week. Within three years he would prophesy that taxation on the family man had been reduced or the means test for the family benefit had been abolished. That would result in not»only assistance to the family man, but also to the country as a whole and the Social Security Funds, because it would provide an incentive to work.

Mr. D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisbbrne) said it was almost amusing to hear members of the Opposition advocating greatly increased benefits when a few years ago they were opposing those very things. It appeared to him that the Opposition was now desirous of wrecking the social security scheme by advocating impossible measures.

Mr. W. T. Ahderton (Government, Eden) said that the family benefit had not been introduced with the object of destroying thrift or destroying the incentive to work, but to spread the wealth of the community in accordance with family responsibility. To suggest otherwise was an insult to New Zealanders.

Mr. W. S. Goosman (Nations', Waikato), Utter rot.

Mr. Anderton contended that the social security scheme had done as much to improve the industrial capacity of the Dominion as anything that had been placed on the Statute Book, and the family benefits had assisted in bringing about a greater production of wealth.