The Hawera Star. THURSDAY. JANUARY 27, 1927. FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 27 January 1927, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

THURSDAY. JANUARY 27, 1927. FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in Hawera, Ifanaia. Normanby, Okaiawa. Kltbara. Mangatoki, Kaponga, Alron Hurleyville, Patea, Waverley, Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere. Fra«er Hoad and Ararata-

e Interest in the “family endowment’’ {scheme of the New South Wales Government. has been revived by the endorsement of the principle by the Labour caucus, and we are further informed to-day that, in order to provide the State’s proportion of the fund, it is proposed to tax “the non-employing class who receive an income in the form of dividends, interest and commission.’’ Labour is again on the trail of what, it is pleased to consider its ancient enemy, Capital, and we can imagine that Labour is aglow with fanatic fervour in this “cause”; it is one step nearer that happy day when private wealth and private enterprise will be wiped out, when work will be a matter of compliance with a merely formal demand to put. in an appearance on the .job a few hours daily, and the State will shoulder the burdens of a man's family responsibilities. This is not such an exaggeration as it might appear, for the proposal now being made in all seriousness in New South Wales is that the head of ,a family, who is an industrial wage-earner, should be given six shillings a week in respect of every child under the age of fourteen provided he does not earn more than £SOO a year, with £750 a year under consideration as an extended limit. This means that a man earning up to £lO or £ls a week is to receive assistance from the State towards the support of his family. Of course it is claimed that the object of the endowment is to assist the man who is struggling to keep a family on a much smaller annual income than £SOO, but Labour, for all its vaunted ultrusim, cannot resist the temptation to help itself to some of the spoils that it considers it is justified in handing out to the poor and needy. The proposal to inaugurate a family endowment came from the Eoyal Commission on the mining industry, but its proposal was not received with manifesta- , tions of joy by the miners until they had ascertained what it was going to cost them. Helping the under-dog was ti noble ideal, and they approved of it, so long as it was somebody else who had to do the helping. The miners made it clear, in their answers to the recommendations of the Eoyal Commission, that they accepted the proposals only on the understanding that, the State undertook the whole of the financial responsibility. But the Labour Government, prodigal as it is. in the. expenditure o!' State iunds, does not assume the whole of the responsibility—employers are to be taxed to provide ' the balance. A nice discrimination has . been shown by the promoters of the scheme in respect of the classes whom it shall benefit. Industrial wage earn- , ers have been specifically mentioned as the beneficiaries, but the Government is now finding that its proposal to confine its generosity to one class has aroused resentment in some quarters. The small shop-keeper, the widow rearing a family on a small private annuity, clergymen, and others have had the audacity to claim that they are entitled to assistance equally with the industrial worker who earns as much as £SOO a year, and they have thus added fresh worries to the burden of a State which would, if left alone, confine the distribution of the public's and employers’ money to one elass-r-its own. Consideration of the New South Wales scheme, brings us to the Family Allowances Act adopted by our own Parliament last session. While it is not so generous in its provisions as the New South Wales scheme, providing only two shillings a week per child where New South Wales gives six shillings, ando fixing a salary limit of £2OO a year, instead of the £750 proposed in New South Wales, our Act is open to serious objection. In the first place it was sprung upon the people. There was no active public demand for such a relief measure; criticism of the basic wage had beefi freely offered and glomov pictures had been painted of the prospect of unemployment, but there was no public outcry for State assistance for support of the family of the man who could not earn more than £4 i week. The Government certainly promised in the course of its election campaign to do something for the large family, but it was not anticipated that il would take the form of a straight out grant OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND. It is in this respect that the New Zealand legislation is oven more, crude than the New' South Wales scheme. It is true that the latter scheme provides that only the employer shall contribute, but the New' Zealand Act makes no provision for any form of contribution by anyone, least of all by lire workers themselves. So far this Act has aroused only a tithe of the comment which might, have been reasonably expected, Imt it is probable that more interest will be shown in it when the time approaches for the withdrawal of £250.000 from the Consolidated Fund to provide a straight-out dole for some 60,000 children of workers. Everybody wishes to see tlie children New Zenlanders well fed and clothed, irrespective of the social position of their parents, but. there is room for grave doubt that the new system which has passed quietly into law is the right one.