Working-Man’s Family

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 434, 16 August 1928, Page 7

Working-Man’s Family

State Allowance Scheme works Slowly

EITHER through diffidence c the New Zealand working utilised the Family Allowance: authorities anticipated, and t] another full year’s working conclusions can be arrived at. merit, however, declare that t too many restrictions to enabl

or through lack of knowledge, y man with a family has not s Act to the extent which the he Government considers that is necessary before accurate Labour members in Parlialie Act is hedged round with le it to function usefully.

When the scheme was introduced into the House of Representatives in 1926, the Minister of Pensions, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, explained that to fix a definite sum as a probable payment in family allowances was a task of great difliculty, and as the State was embarking upon a social experiment, its effect as a palliative to distress could not be predicted accurately. The wisdom of this qualification is appreciated now, when State documents reveal that, although the estimated cost of the Act to the Dominion was £250,000, only £37,000 was

paid out during the first year of its operation. Applications for assistance fell far short of the anticipated calls, and the restrictive provisions excluded many from participation in benefits. Of the 3,980 claims made, 579 were rejected, the-, majority of them on account of the family income being greater than the specified limit. The State set out to pay two shillings weekly for each child (under 15 years) in excess of two in a family, the average weekly income of the applicant, wife and children not to exceed £4. The allowance, which is payable upon the fulfilment of certain rigid conditions, must be devoted to the maintenance or the education of the specific children for whom it is collected. SYMPATHY NEEDED A computation made about nine months after the Act commenced to operate convinced the Government that the privilege was not being eagerly sought by the working man, hut this

reluctance was attributed by officialdom to a traditional laxity which is universally manifest upon the enactment of social legislation. Experience with the old-age pensions in the Seddon regime, and later with the widows’ pensions, proved the existence of a vague spirit of uneasiness in the collection of State grants, and the Commissioner of Pensions now wishes for at least another year in which to determine any reliable tendency in respect to family allowances. Those who examine the situation, and touch it with a little Imaginative understanding, will perceive in it wide possibilities for substantial amelioration of the common lot —provided always that the administration is sympathetic and judicious. LABOURER BENEFITS The most serious general criticism of the Act yet to be advanced was ventured in Parliament last week by an Auckland member, Mr. M. J. Savage, who complained of the inelasticity of its scope and the rigidity of its restricting provisions. “The Act is a disappointment,” he said, “and bristles with conditions which shut out everyone.” During the first year of operation, which ended on March 31 of this year, 10,000 children in excess of two in a family were assisted, represented, in round figures, by 3,000 families, while the aggregate children in these families reached well over 16,000 —an average of 5.09 in a family. Of those who benefited, 1,350 were labourers, 29 S farm hands, 290 farmers, 122 public servants, 101 watersiders, S2O invalids, 20 old age, miners and blind pensioners, and 19 prisoners. The Maori race, the members of which have learned by costly experience to help themselves to all possible benefits shared by their pakeha friends, has participated largely in family allowances. Of the 302 native claimants, 265 were granted various sums for the maintenance of their children, the remaining 37 being refused on account of the invalidity of their claims. HOW PAYMENTS ARE FIXED Four shillings a week is the most popular payment among beneficiaries, and 749 of the 3,154 recipients got this sum last year. Of the remainder, 712 are on the 6s mark, 583 receive 2s, 488 get Bs, and 302 are given 10s. Only one payment of £1 weekly is recorded, though over a score of families derive 16s a week from the State. During this difficult period of fluctuating labour markets, the limitations of the Act may appear drastic, and while in some individual cases this destroys the intention of the legislation, the line of discrimination had to be drawn somewhere. The march to happiness and universal content, however, is not fated nor assured, and “be it ever so humble,” the efforts of the State to dull the sharp sting of poverty must be viewed, not as the pursuit of a fanciful ideal, but as a well-intentioned endeavour to improve the economic status of the lower-paid family man.