FAMILY ALLOWANCE ACT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18892, 6 January 1927, Page 9

FAMILY ALLOWANCE ACT.

■lO THE EUITOK Or TBI t'BES3 .sir —I liavc read with considerable interest your conuneiit on the above, and agree in tlic main with your contention about the New tsuuth Wales tflituie. With your permission I deairc to oiler a lew words in defence of, and justification of the -New Zealand Act of last session. In the first place I desire to point out that the l'riine Minister in his manifesto issued prior to the last general election, and broadcast throughout the Dominion, stated very clearly, -'that some assistance would have to be provided for larse families." He did not state what constituted a large family, • or how much the assistance would be. So far as I can remember not one word of protect was uttered again-t his proposal -Mr Coates has fulfilled his promise. Your article in Wednesday's Press rciers to it as "a more cnidc iind vicious scheme than even Mr Land's." ■ and you describe it a*, "a dole." I do not agree (hat it i--either "crjde. vicious, or a dole.'' Can you suggest anything belter? 1 understand the Christcliurch Citv Council pays its married men with large families a higher rate than ic p;iys to its single men o r married n:"ii

with small, fnniilies. Thi= plan may work satisfactorily in a corporation, but would be quite impracticable with culinary employers who are in keen competition with each other. Kor years, past, the State has recognised its obligation to men in the middle and upper stations in lit> M - v them an exemption of fifty pound? in their returns l'o r Ineome-tas purposes, lor each child, in addition to the £3OO exemption in their private capacity, so that a man with a family of, bay, six children, may draw a salary of £OOO a year and contribute nothing by way of Income-tax. If it is right that such a i,ran should receive such recognition (T am «'.oi suggesting it is wrong) at the hands of the Stat* because he is bringing up sis children, surely there can be nothing wrong in the State assisting a man with a large family, whose income from all sources is only one third of his more fortunate neighbour. By the \cw Zealand scheme, approximately .32.000 children will benefit. I have heard it said the children will not benefit. May I point out the great care the State has taken to see that the benefit goes to the children. The father cannot draw the money, and if the father and mother combine to spend the ninner on themselves, the State steps in and says in effect: This money is for the children, and as you are not using if for their benefit, the payment will in the future be made to social workers like Miss Cardale, Sister Grace, Mrs Herbert, Rev. Rule, etc., whose duty it will be to see that the money is spent on the children. Tlio i; dolo" you mention is certainly not very much, but it represents £'2o 16s a year to a family of six, or over £3OO in the years of its duration. T. know the l'rime Minister did not intend to commence with the third child. I need not take up your space by giving the reasons for starting with the third child, but they are good reasons. If the benefit had commenced with the fifth child and the weekly payment had been fixed at 5s per week, it would have cost the State less than the present scheme. If an employee sued his employer before the Arbitration Court for an increase of 10s per week, and the Court awarded him an increase of 8s he would go home with a feeling of som© satisfaction, that he had won a victory. Now the State steps in and gives the family of six children Ss without going to the Court for help. If says in effect to the mother: Here is 8s a week as the State's recognition of your national motherhood; wages are not the deciding factor, but the income from all sources, whether from wages or business. It is contended that the husband will continue- to agitate for more wages. My reply is that if he is succcsful, and that, increase brings his income up to £4 a ! week or more, then ho ceases to benefit tinder the Family Allowance Act, so he is probably no better off. The State has to look ahead, and see that the children of to-day are given a reasonable chanre to grow up healthy, strong, and respectable citizens of to-morrow. Tf you can suggest some better way, I will promise to give it my most earnest consideration. Thanking'you in anticipation,—Yours, etc.,

H. HOLLAND Christeluirch, January otli.