BABY BONUS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20182, 26 June 1928, Page 8

BABY BONUS

COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM BIG FAMILY SHORTAGE SYDNEY, June 24. The suggestion of a member of the Australian Women's National League that the Commonwealth baby bonus should go, not to the babies’ fond parents, but as a subsidy to organisations which exist to promote infant and maternal welfare, has naturally not been received with vociferous cheers among those who arc doing their bit to add to the handful of people in Australia. It is generally recognised that the baby bonus, which is sound in principle, but badlyplanned, does not achieve its objective, viz., the substantial increase of birth rate. For one thing, it is too small to save, and just large enough to spend, not on necessities, but n what might be termed the little embroideries of life, for which, after all. one cannot blame the womenfolk. The has been emphasised that Australia is short, not of first or second babies, but of the babies that follow and go to make up big families, fn this regard, it has been suggested that the equitable and logical way would be to create a family fund, with a bonus, not of £5 for the first child, but of say, £l5 or £2O for the third child, with an additional £5 for the fourth child, and so on. Whethe’, however, even a cumulative bonus >n these lines would be a stimulus to big families is very doubtful.