FAMILY ALLOWANCE

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1926, Page 11

FAMILY ALLOWANCE

IMPORTANT PROPOSALS. TO HELP BIC FAMILIES. JTWO SHILLINGS PER CHILD. LABOURITES WANT MORE. By Telegr.vh.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night, 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 disCusse'd. Since 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 wellbeing of the families of those in poorer circumstances. The principle had been in operation in Europe for several years, but was confined to trades or groups of 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 Government to find out how much this scheme would cost. On the basis of these figures £266,000. per annum would be required. The Act is to come into force on April 1, 1927. Upon application being made to the Commissioner of Pensions, the father of three or more children is entitled to receive two shillings a week for every child under 15 years of age, in excess of two, provided the average weekly income from all sources of the "family of the applicant does not exceed £4. “Child,” in relation to an application for an allowance, embraces legal adoptions, but does not include an illegitimate or children in respect of whom a pension is payable under the 1913 Pensions Aet, the 1915 War Pensions Aet, or other enactment benefits are extended. In respect of certain children, where the Minister .of Pensions is satisfied that a child benefiting under the Act is, by reason of physical or mental deficiency, totally incapacitated from earning a living, an allowance may continue to be paid after the child has turned 15. Discretionary power is also given the Minister to authorise payment of an allowance to an illegitimate, save in exceptional cases to be determined by the Commissioner. All allowances under the Aet are to be paid to the wife of the applicant. If the wife is not living with the applicant the allowance may be paid to him. No allowances will be payable unless the applicant and his wife have permanently resided in the Dominion for a year, and unless the children were either born here or lived in the country for a year. Permanent residence W'Jl not be interrupted by the fact that while remaining domiciled in New Zealand a person has been employed out of the country. It is further provided that no al'owances will be payable to an alien or an Asiatic (whether naturalised or not and whether a British subject by birth or not), and allowances may be refused if the applicant or his wife is of noto.iously bad character, has been guilty of misconduct, dishonouring either in public estimation, or if either has directly or indirectly deprived himself or herself of income or property in order to obtain the allowance. The Aet definitely lays it down that a’l allowances are to be applied exclusively for the benefit of the child ren, and when the commissioner doubts that the grant will contribute towards ' the maintenance or education of the child he may, with the approval of the Minister, decline the application. Under the heading ef offences the Bill renders liable to a fine of £lOO or twelve months' imprisonment, anybody who claims or receives the allowance without right fails to disclose faithfully particulars of property. For the purposes of administration of the Aet 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. ALLOWANCE NOT ENOUGH. Mr. Savage (Auckland West) said they had to be thankful for small mercies. The Minister said the Bill affirm- < 1 the principle of the family allowance, and that was about all it did. He had previously introduced similar measures but he could not remember any Minister coming to bis help to get it passed. He could remember Mr. Speaker being compelled to rule his Bill out on the grounds that it contained an appropriation clause, and no members of the Government lifted a hand, to get over that difficulty. Since theii the general election came along and the Government now produced their measure in fulfilment of election pledges forced from them. 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. Hon. W. Anderson: “Are you going to vote against the Bill?” Mr. Savage: “Not on your life, because it contains the principle for which I have been fighting for years.” The Government might have provided for ,s fid 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 nat 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 hot be long before they got a Bill which would be worth white, THE MEASURE DEFENDED. Hon F. J. Rolleston paid a tribute to the pa.-t services to familv 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;* hut it should be remembered it was not merely 2a per week, but 2s j>er week per Uuld 4 and would

cases be an appreciable addition to family finance. The Government had not said they were liable for the whole maintenance of the family, but were simply making a contribution towards maintenance as a measure of assistance. Criticism aS to it being a small amount would not stand, but 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 £266,000 per annum, and this was quite reasonable to begin with. They had no precedent to guide them. They were in some respects groping in the dark and had to go slowly, but that was satisfactory so long as they were proceeding along sound lines. The country was not justified in appropri-. ating more for the purpose at present, in view of the state of public finance. Principles such as were embodied in the Biil should not be party questions. What they wanted was helpful criticism to make the measure satisfactory ami effective. CANNOT AFFORD 7/6 PER WEEK. Mr. IV. E. Parry deplored the inadequacy of the allowance in the measure. Even so "the Bill was a great tribute to the Labour Party, which had been 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. They did not promise a definite sum of 7s 6d per child, nor did they undertake to raise the wages of a man with a large family, but they undertook to give him some substantial help and that this Bill-did. He was against 7s fid per week at present because the country’s finances could not afford it. When the finances could stand the strain he would support it. To do what the Labour Party claimed they would do would cost over nine millions per annum, which was simply impossible. ANOTHER LABOUR TILT. Mr. Sullivan. (.Avon) contended that the Government was very ready to reduce taxation to relieve large landowners, but were not so eager - to provide an adequate allowance for children of large families. He 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. Lysnar (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 APPROVES. Sir Joseph Ward said he favoured the proposal in the Bill. He did not believe in providing a maximum allowance at this stage. If the Liberals had done that when they introduced the old-age pensions and widows’ pensions these beneficent measures would never have been passed, but as it was they were pilloried by the Opposition of that? day with heaping up taxation on the people. 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. -In the last two years we had heaped an additional burden of £1,348,000 on the Consolidated Fund, aud it was practically certain this. would be repeated in the next two years. 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. He favoured assisting large families, bitt all he asked of the House and country was not to overdo it. " i Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) supported the Bill as a beginning. Mr. McKeen (Wellington South! thought that the principle of the Bill was good, but the amount given would be of little vftlue to those most in need of it. Mr. T. W. Rhodes (Thames) supported the Bill because he had always been a friend of the poor. The Labour Party criticised the Bill but had not put forward a single useful suggestion. Mr. 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. WARNING BY PREMIER. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates warned the House against overloading the scheme; that". would be :ae best way of securing its breakdown. It was better to begin in a small way. 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, fflebate proceeding ) - 1