The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, November 10, 1949. THE FAMILY

Grey River Argus, 10 November 1949, Page 4

The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, November 10, 1949. THE FAMILY

point of outstanding importance Mr M. Moohan in his address at Bunanga made last evening is that this Government is the best friend that the family lias ever had in the country’s social history. Nationalist press and platform propagandists are fond of contrasting present day taxation with depression time taxation, but never dare to compare family securily to-day with the family insecurity up till 1936. The true significance of taxation figures is ignored by the Opposition propagandists, who may appreciate the value of money, but do not appear to appreciate the value of anything else. Where now is there evidence in the country of poverty? It is as conspicuously absent as it was conspicuously present everywhere before Labour came into power. Labour is abundantly justified therefore in the claim that its special care for the family has been thoroughly' effective, and that no other country can compare with our own in respect to family welfare. Housing is of a higher general standard than ever before, and so good has it been made

that the Opposition is (jnite nonplussed. On the one hand they say more of it is necessary, and on the oilier that it could be left to private enterprise, which would largely be to private landlords. Education is a big item of family (-oncern, and one reason of increased taxation is better education, more schools, more teachers and healthier school children. The necessity for more schools has been the growing rate of population increase, another illustration of care for the family. Xot only has taxation increase been accompanied by population increase, but it has strangely been paralleled by a faster rise in the. people’s taxable capacity. Health services have been a boon for families, but they must be paid for, and when it comes to a choice the Nationalists differ from Labour liy implying that it is better to sacrifice public health than to find the means for its preservation. If they got the chance they might even try to lower iaxarion towards the de-pression-time level, on the score that money, in the long run, is more valuable than men and women I It would be only a repetition of their polilical history. If the contrary idea, that population is the most important need, has been since enthroned, a contributory factor has been the family benefit. That benefit is not to be sustained if rhe country’s taxes have in a large degree to be sent abroad in payment of debl, whereas the reduction of oversea debt has meant that the interest even on the large war debt remains in Xew Zealand. The same thing is illustrated in the very large proportion of taxation —equivalent to more than flu 1 total income tax —which is directly returned to the people in benefits, health services, and other personal aids. It is true that the family benefit is more largely shared by the workers than by other sections, but it is payable to all, and the fact that workers have the more children is only another proof that the Government's policy is designed especially in the interests of the family. As Mr Moohan hinted, the National Early would draw a line, suggesting that elderly people he induced to sacrifice leisure to enter domestic service—and it would be mainly tin; service of the well-to-do, who arc not generally characterised by large families. Conversely, the greatest sufferers, ’if there were a change of Government, would be tlie larger families —and no Nationalist has attempted even to suggest the contrary, indeed, one

of the strongest reasons to expect a marked rise in the aggregate vote for Labour at the end of the month is the undeniably great betterment of the position of the family. Mr Holland himself, in fact, lias already said that this

election is going to be a family matter. He is entitled to all the comfort he may find in contemplating that fact. It will be the deciding factor.