The Star. SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1922. MOTHERHOOD ENDOWMENT

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16816, 19 August 1922, Page 8

The Star. SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1922. MOTHERHOOD ENDOWMENT

The House yesterday agreed to the first reading of the Motherhood En dowment Bill introduced by Mr Savage, one of the Auckland Labour members It is unlikely that anything more will be heard of the Bill this session, the mover having attained his object by having the question discussed by the House. As the Bill would involve considerable financial provision if it were passed a private member could not proceed very far with it unless the Government took it up. Mr Savage had explained to the House that the Bill proposed to legalise a basic wage, which was calculated on an average family consisting of a wife and two children. Provision was also made for a family larger than the average, and he proposed to give an endowment of ten shillings a week for every child above two, and under the age of fifteen years. The administration of the Bill would be ip the hands of the Minister of Pensions, and questions of interpretation would be settled by the Arbitration Court. Finance for the Bill, of course, involved taxation, and this must be made to fall on those who could bear it. There was also provision in the Bill for the maintenance of children who were not under the charge of their parents, or whose parents were unworthy, and wider powers were taken to meet varying conditions by means of regulation. With the best intentions, no doubt, Mr Savage has produced only a half-baked scheme. The financial obligation cannot be dismissed with an airy direction that it must be “ made to fall on those "who could bear it.” That phrase has been worked to death during the past few years, but no one has yet succeeded in locating the class which is willing or able t*.' bear special taxation for philanthropical or grandmotherly schemes of social reform. Only too frequently the money given by the State fails to achieve its purpose. One of the shining examples ot philanthropical futility is the baby bonus in Australia. It was one of the electioneering expedients of the Fisher Government, which handed out £5 of the people’s money to every mother in the continent. The bonus encouraged frauds, and involved a shocking waste of money, while as a means of encouraging motherhood it failed most completely. It was claimed by people who did not need it, and the point was made by critics that one-tenth of the money spent on the bonus, if used to provide maternity hospitals, nursing, hygiene and instruction, would have had more effect on the population and health of the babies anw mothers than the bonus, which was too often frittered away. The Federal Committee ot the British Medical Association, which met in Sydney recently, urged the Federal Government to expend *the money now voted to the maternity bonus along the folowing lines:—(l) The extension of maternity hospitals, antenatal clinics, and infant welfare centres. (2) The provision of more efficient midwifery training for nurses and medical students. (3) The provision of help for mothers and expectant mothers in necessitous circumstances. (4) Such other measures as are advised from time to time by medical experience. There is something practical in these proposals, which to some extent are in operation both, in Australia and New Zealand. There is, however, room for extension and improvement, and any money which the State can spare should be devoted to that object, rather than to a mere distribution of cash doles which partake far too much of the character of indiscriminate charity. A great deal can be done to ease the burdenß which parenthood places on working people. While the St. Helen’s hospitals have accomplished something it is a fact that the charges for nursing and medical attention are a serious item on interesting domestic occasions. The St Helen’9 hospitals have turned out many nurses in midwifery, hut numbers have not had the effect of making nursing services available at entirely reasonable rates. Charges vary with individuals, but there is a standardisation at about four guineas per week, commencing from the date of the engagement, not from the date of the birth. When to this are added the medical fees and other expenses the total bill is one of considerable magnitude. If the State is to seriously consider the endowment of motherhood it should begin at the right end, hv ensuring to mothers proper medical and nursing attention and hygienic instruction, and as far as possible relieving them of the nightmare of extreme financial liability.