The Press Wednesday, January 5, 1927. "Family Endowment."

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18891, 5 January 1927, Page 6

The Press Wednesday, January 5, 1927. "Family Endowment."

The members of the New Zealand Government and of our Parliament, when they read our Sydney correspondent's account of the "child endowment" scheme of the New South "Wales Government, may preen themselves upon their cautious wisdom in providing that the "family allowances" to be paid by the taxpayer shall be only 2s per week per child, and shall be payable only when the family's income is not above four pounds a week. For in New South "Wales the rate is to be 6s per child under the age of 14, and the payment is to be made in all cases in which the family income does not exceed £750 a year. The cost of the scheme will be borne only in part by the State, the bulk of the burden falling upon the employers. The total cost is estimated to be £7,000,000 a year to begin with. If it be granted that a State may wisely regulate the wages to be paid in any industry, fixing minimum rates, there is much to be said for an "endowment" scheme under which the rates of pay would vary according to the family obligations of the workers. But an essential condition of any such plan is that the basic wage should be the wage actually needed by the unmarried male worker, and it would be necessary that this should be substantially lower than the present basic wage, which, in Australia as in New Zealand, i 3 either too low or too high in.at least nine cases out of ten. Since it, appears to be the intention of the New South Wales Government to keep the " basic wage " at the present rate, its scheme will inflict serious hardship and injustice upon employers. It may also, as our correspondent suggests, turn out badly for many married workers, since many employers may be unable to afford to employ any but unmarried men. But what is specially important for New Zealand to note is the fact that 6s per child is the New South Wales Government's first instalment. That is a Labour Government, very free from scruples concerning good principles or sound finance, but still a Government in a position too precarious to allow it to throw the taxpayers' money to the unions as lavishly as it would if it were strong enough to defy criticism. In New Zealand we have a Government which is very far indeed irom being reckless and Socialist, but it has adopted, with the unanimous consent of the House of Representatives, a more crude, and vicious scheme than even jtfr Lang's. The fact that the allowance—i.e., the . direct payment from the Consolidated Fund—is only 2s per week per child i 3 nothing in its favour. The vital thing in the Act is, not the actual rate of the subsidy, but the subsidy plain dole superimposed upon the basic wage fixed by the Arbitration Court. In time to come, if the Act is not repealed, the politicians will assuredly begin to bid against; each other for the support of those who will draw this dole. Two shillings will become three shillings, and then four shillings will be bid, only to' be overbid by an offer of five shillings, and nobody can say where the politicians will end. That this is no fanciful picture of the future of this "humanitarian" legislation we have the history of our Pension Laws as witness.