LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 100, 22 January 1919, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

POPULATION, DISCOURAGING LARGE FAMILIES. Sir, —In your columns of Friday's , paper entitled "Notes of ths Day" you refer to the lack of interest being taken by those in authority with reference to the population question of New Zealand. The present and past Governments of this country have never realised the great importance of tin's question, especially that aspect of the question relating to increased birthrate; in fact, the legislation of this country has shown a tendency to restrict the birth-rate. For instance, take the income tax law. Up to two years ago no allowance was made for any number of children over the number of five. The same thing applies today regarding the widow's pension, where pensions are paid for four children and no more. Thus it would appear that the Government '. considers that no family should consist of more than four children: The same idea' applies in a recent advertisement calling for applications for military police, where the children's allowances are limited to a certain amount. Then we have the unrestricted sale of certain articles in chemists' shops, which must tend to a reduced birth-rate, and yet no action is taken to prevent the sales of these goods. Tho provisions' of the National Provident Fund and those relating to the building of workmen's homes should bo altered and concessions made to people with families. Instead of the fixed amount of £200 per nnnti.n income before advantago can'be taken of the above, a sliding scale should bo introduced so that for 'every child in the family an. increase in income of, say, £00, should be allowed.- Thus a. mnn f with a family of five and earning £450 J ] per annum would bo on the same footing as a married man v/ith no family earning £200 per annum., In the balleting for Government land, for every child an extra chance could be given, so that-by these means and others the Government of this country could show .tJiat they are in earnest to help the man with a large family, and rightly so, because it is the man with the large family who is the greatest contributor to Ithe State revenue through tho Customs taxes, and he is the man also who is providing the State with its greatest asset —that is, children. With reference to the military 'wjdow's pension and the civil widow's pension, I am still at a loss to know why there should be any difference. Surely the children of the civil widow are as valuable 'to the State as the children of the military widow. The standard has now been set regarding pensions, and the sooner the Government raises the 'civil .widow's pension to that standard, and not ask a widow with four or more childrsn to exist on £30 a year, the better it will be for the future of this country.—l am, etc., POPULATION. , 'Patea, January 18. ....