The Daily News. FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1920. BONUS FOR PARENTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 May 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1920. BONUS FOR PARENTS.

On no members of the community does the high cost of living pres so heavily as those with families, and the larger the family the more oppressive is the burden, which is growing month by month. The war, in taking such a terrible toll of human life, has made all the more manifest the urgent necessity of encouraging large families, and taking the most effective measures to promote the health of children. The mere raising the wages of those employed in the various industries fails altogether to meet the special requirements of those who are rearing a number of children, for the higher the wages paid the dearer becomes tlie cost of living. It is pleasing to know that this problem has not been ignored, and that a movement has been initiated, which it is considered should become national in its scope, for making special provision for the support of children of the workers. The Dunedin City Council, during the early days of the war, granted to its married employees a special bonus based on the number of children of each employee, this bonus being given in addition to all other cost of living bonuses granted by the Arbitration Court, and intended to operate as a special provision to meet the needs of men with families, upon whom the increased cost of living pressed heavily. For a municipality to act thus was most creditable, but it was as a mere drop of water in the ocean. TlDunedin Council recognised this, and being of opinion that the matter was one that should become national in its scope, has circularised other municipalities and public bodies urging the establishment of a State' bonus for parents of large families. At its last meeting the Stratford Borough Council decided to support the scheme, which it was considered was on the right lines. The distinction which is sometimes made in regard to giving married men higher pay than single, while not covering the whole of the ground, is certainly a move in the right direction. It is apparent, however, that the size of the family should be the main factor on which bonuses are paid, and that is the crux of the Dunedin proposals. If ' it. is right that married men should receive higher pay than single, then it follows that the extra money should be regulated by the number of mouths to feed and bodies to clothe. The difficulty of dealing with this problem by way of ordinary cost of living bonuses added to wages can readily be conceived, unless all employers followed the example of the Dunedin Council and made this family bonus in addition to all other cost of living bonuses, a course very unlikely to become general. Hence the proposal that the State should take this grant

under its care and deal with it as a national duty and as a national asset. No thoughtful person can dismiss such a practical proposal lightly. While it may be considered that the Government should not undertake further financial responsibilities that involve additional burdens on the taxpayers, there is a strong case for State action, especially in the direction of making single people and childless parents bear their full share of maintaining children who are so vitally necessary to the future welfare of the Dominion. There are directions in which the scheme could well be extended, especially in connection with maternity bonuses, free medical services and satisfactory housing. In fact it is one of the urgent problems that should be fully examined and dealt with by,the Government, and if, as they should, the people press the matter on the Government, it should result in a satisfactory scheme being evolved, whereby the present handicap to parents of large families can be removed.