WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 August 1926, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

FAMILY ALLOWANCES. REDEMPTION OE ELECTION PLEDGES. (Special to “ Guardian.”) WELLINGTON, August 20. The Family Allowances Bill, introduced by the linn G. J. Anderson, in redemption of a pledge given by the Prime Minister during the recent election campaign, completed its way through the House early yesterday morning, and was passed on to the Legislative Council, where Mr Coates indicated, several amendments to the measure will be introduced. During the second reading debate the Labour members, who claim to be the authors of the under-lying principle of the Bill, protested strongly against the paucity of Ihe proposed allowance, which, they said, by the time it bad been whittled down by various deductions would be scarcely wort 1 ! collecting. -Mr Andoson quoted some, startling figures in submitting the case for the Bill, showing, among other things, that theic were 2.538 married couples in the Dominion whose incomes were less than fc.j 2 year, and that of these Pin had one child. 702 two children. 414 tluw, 2(0 four. 131 live. 51 six. 44 seven, L> eight, 13 nine and (i ton. The Minister went on to explain that the proposed allowance of 2s a week would be payable only in respect to children exceeding the number of two in a family, and drew from Mr J. A. Lee, the member lor Auckland East. a. leiteiation of his exclamation: ‘‘Prosperous New Zealand!” The Labour members insisted that the Government had led the public to expect the allowance would he at least 7s fid a week; but failing in their repeated appeals to the Treasury benches for more generous treatment they accepted what they could' get with such grace as they could muster. ON SECOND THOUGHTS. The '‘Dominion” in its issue of Wednesday referred to this Family, Allowances" Hill as “ tlie most important item in the Government’s legislative, programme this session ’ and mentioned the fact that, it had been introduced in redemption of a pledge made at Inst election.” On the following day. however, it editorially changed its mind. “ However much one’s sympathies may approve the objects aimed at by the measure.” it said, “doubts aie bound to obtrude as to how far those objects are likely to be attained by the means proposed. Though the allowance fixed is not large it might prove helpful in many eases if used in the right way. but there is n<> guarantee of this. If the £5 4s per child per annum were capitalised, however, .and used as a deposit to secure tor the family man a home ol his own, purchased through the State under easy conditions." it would not only prove of immediate assistance to the'family and a benefit to. t’<e children, but would be an encouragement to the thrifty to make the most of the opportunity. The rent question is one of the biggest probloins the family man has to face, and this aspect af the matter might well receive consideration as a preferable alternative to the weekly dole.” This revision of opinion, of course, was due to a better understanding of the purport of the Bill, and doubtless saggested some of the amendments the Prime Minister is contemplating! Ell ND AAI ENT ALLY W KONG.

Quite possibly The morning paper was stimulated to a closer examination of tlio subject by a. statement from Mr T. 0. Bishop, the secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, which appeared in the same issue as did its own recantation. “ New Zealand workers neither need nor desire charity.” Mr Bishop stated. “ They require and are entitled to the best working conditions and the best wages which can be provided by the industries iji which they are employed, and the State can assist the development of industries and refrain from the imposition of additional burdens. I. am convinced that a. dole is as repugnant to New Zealanders as to other British workers.” Continuing Air Bishop said he considered the Family Allowances Bill was nothing more nor less than a State distribution of charity doles, and was being put forward as an alternative to the fostering of industries wide'' would give the workers a reasonable chance of providing for their families and themselves by their own efforts. Air Bishop described the various schemes employed by the European countries after the war, which involved payments by bo till employers and the State, but no such scheme, he declared, had been accepted in Britain or in any .British speaking community because it was repugnant to the British spirit of independence. 'Hie attitude of the British workman to it had always been that, given adequate pay for the work he performed, tie would provide for his own wife and children, and would not allow anyone else to do so. “Yet,” tie said in conclusion, “the Continental schemes with all their weaknesses were, surely better than is the State distribution of charity now proposed in New Zealand.”

ANOTHER CRITIC. The “ Evening Post.” sides with the secretory of the Employers’ Federation in denouncing the whole sorry business. “ Fears of what the Family Allowance Rill would lead to,” it says, “have been realised. The Government proposed 2s to cost a quarter of a million pounds, and l.ahonr members upon the seeond reading contended For higher amounts ranging up to 10s to cost two and a quarter millions. Rut this is not the worst feature of the business. The Government offer was presented with an apology for the smallness of the amount, and defenders of the measure even at this stage were to he heard suggesting an early increase. The question of principle was scarcely touched upon. Even the halfhearted defence presented by the Minister of Pensions was based largely upon an error. The system, he said, was in force on the Continent of Europe, and New Zealand therefore was only coming into line in this respect with older countries. The .system proposed under this Hill—a general payment by the (state to all impecunious families—is not in force upon the Continent. What is in force, and lint wholly in favour, is a system of family allowances at the expense of industries, and certain Governments, as employers, share in this system. This is wholly different from what the Government proposes.” The 11 Post,' acquainted with all the facts, asks suggestively if the Minister who introduced this measure is the Minister who considered quite lately that the pension basis must lie changed and made contributory.