FAMILY AID.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 19 August 1926, Page 5

FAMILY AID.

GOVERNMENT BILL

(BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 18.

In the House of Representatives today the Hon. G. J. Anderson moved, the second reading of the Family Allowances Bill, the principle of which, he said, was being widely discussed bmee the last general election the matter had been considered by the Government, and it had been decided to give practical effect to it. This was the first occasion in which a Government had adopted responsibility for the well-being ot the families of those in' poorer circumstances. . The principle had been m operation in Europe for several years, but was confined to trades or groups or workers. At the recent census taken in New Zealand certain questions had been asked with regard to incomes, and these questions had been asked to enable the Goveminent to find out how much. this scheme would cost. On. the basis of these figures £260,000 per annum would be required. The Act is to come into force on April 1, 1927. For the purposes of administration of the Act the machinery of the Pensions Department will be used, and would not be costly. He was satisfied the principle was a sound one, and the Government laid it before the House and the country in fulfilment of their election pledges. He trusted Parliament would pass it. Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said they had to be thankful for small mercies. The suid the Bill affirmed the principle of the family allowance, and that was about all it did. He commented severely upon the smallness of the amount of the allowance provided; 2s per child per week was not likely to seriously disturb family finance in this country. The Government might have provided for 7s Cd per child per week; it might have at least have been ss, which would have brought down upon the Government. the blessings of the whole House, but 2s per week was the greatest political joke ever perpetrated. He wanted to know whether any benefits derived from friendly societies was to be deducted when computing the average weekly wage. That was important, and had been specially provided for in the Labour Party’s measure. He did uot think the Bill had -been brought down out of the goodness of the Government’s heart, but because of the election propaganda which had been carried on in connection with the measure. He sincerely hoped that it would not be long before -they got a Bill which would be worth while. Hon. F. J. Eollcston (Timaru) paid a tribute to the past services to family allowance by Mr Savage and was glad to find that he had so little fault to find with this Bill. His criticism was confined to the allowance .of 2s per week. It might suit his purpose. to pour ridicule upon it, but it should be remembered it was not merely 2s per week, but 2s per week per child, and would in some cases be an appreciable addition to family finance. They had to think not, of the effect on the individual, but the'effect on the country as a whole. The Minister had said the scheme was going to cost £266,UUU per annum, and this was quite reasonable to begin with. They had no precedent to guide them. They were in sonic respects groping m the dark and had to go slowly, but that was satisfactory so long as they were proceeding along sound lines. Principles such as were embodied in the Bill' should not be party questions. What they wanted was helpful criticism to make the measure satisfactory and effective. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) deplored the inadequacy of the allowance provided in the measure. Even so the Bill was a great tribute to the Labour Party, which had ben advocating the principle for the past fifteen years. , , , , Mr J. Mason (Napier) contended that quite early in the election campaign the Reform Party announced that they were out to help the man with a large family. To do what the Labour Party claimed they would do would cost oyer nine millions per annum, which was simply impossible. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) contrasted unfavourably the Government's scheme with the schemes in other countries, and regretted that it had not made an endeavour to be more generous than it had. Mr W. D. Lvsnar (Gisborne) said at no time had" the Government ever undertaken to provide full maintenance for, poor families.' All they had done was to provide an allowance for that purpose. . Sir Joseph Ward said he favoured the proposal in the Bill. He

did not believe in providing a maximum allowance at this stage. He warned the country against asking the Consolidated Fund to bear too great a burden. We were tending that way every day, and it only required that one source of revenue should fail to bring about a serious position. Should the revenue fail the only avenue we could fly to was the 'Customs, and increased Customs meant increased cost of living, .. which was staggering at present. ' " .... Mr A. Harris (Waitemata) supported the Bill as a beginning. Mr R. McKcen (Wellington South) thought that the principle of the Bill was good, but the amount given would 1)0 of little value to those most in need of it. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) declared that the Government was. not doing what they led the people of the country to believe they were going to do. The State could and should afford more than the Bill proposed. v The Et. Hon. J. G. Coates warned the House against overloading the scheme; that would be the best way of securing its breakdown. It had been intended to give more, but on consideration it was decided to proceed on' a sure basis. He believed the future would show at an early date that they would be able to increase the amount of the allowance, and he thanked the House for its evident intention to accept the Bill as a useful instalment towards family aid.