The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1922. SUBSIDISING FAMILIES.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 August 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1922. SUBSIDISING FAMILIES.

The scheme evolved by the member for Wellington South (Mr. G. Mitchell), as outlined in the Bill which he introduced in the House of Representatives last week, the object of which was to assist men earning low wages to bring up their families, is an indication of the trend towards a very dangerous principle as applied to State responsibilities. The claim promulgated in the Bill is that families of young children should be subsidised partly by contributions from employees having no dependents, partly by employers, and in other part by the State, though it will be noticed that some of the speakers in the debate went much further in their claims. For instance, Mr. Savage contended that the liability for the support of children belonged to the whole hpdy politic, and not to any one class or industry, hence it fell upon the State, and should be met out of the Consolidated Fund. Mr. Wright’s view was that the size of an employee’s family should be the dominating factor in fixing the wages paid to the workers, so that the unmarried men who endeavored to make themselves expert by obtaining the best practical experience and by study would be penalised by having to contribute to the wages of men who possibly might be wasters or addicted to vices that increased the country’s expenditure. The Leader of the Labor Party (Mr. Holland), from whom might have been expected some practical views on the subject, had nothing better to advance than the claim that “Society owed it to the children that they should have a decent opportunity of growing up,” to which he added that motherhood endowment was the proper solution. The subject is by no means a novel one in politics of recent years, and it opens up several important issues that have far-reaching effects. To lay down the principle that young children should be supported out of the Consolidated Fund would be dangerously near to facilitating the advent of Communism. That it would destroy all the self-respect of the workers to have their children brought up by the aid of charitable doles, no matter whether the money be contributed by fellow employees, employers. or the State, cannot be disputed. The question that at once suggests itself is, where would the line be drawn as regards these subsidies or doles? Would they be confined to the manual workers who earn far more than other employees and are in a much better position to bring up large families? Yet the latter manage to battle through and maintain their self-respect. It has, of course, to be admitted that there are a number of men in what are termed the laboring class who do not, and never will, shoulder their responsibilities, and it is to be feared that they will sink still lower in this respect if their children are to be supported by the public, for that is what State aid means. Any attempt to regulate wages on the basis of the number of a worker’s dependents must inevitably prove to be a ghastly failure, for it would destroy the fundamental principles of industry. The factor which properly regulates wages is the value of the work performed, not the outgoings of the men, either personal or domestic. State aid or compulsory contributions from others might well be expected to stimulate improvidence, to eliminate thrift, and to destroy ambition, as well as self-respect. It is only right from a humanitarian point of view that there should exist an agency for meeting cases of misfortune and helping the victims out of their temporary troubles. That duty properly belongs to the boards administering charitable aid. Possibly that is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wilford) meant when he said “there was an urgent need that something should be done to ameliorate the condition of many in unfortunate circumstances.” That, however, is vastly different to establishing a general doctrine that the cost of bringing up the families of t’ie workers should be borne by the public, leaving those who are morally and legally bound to undertake the responsibility free io indulge in all sorts of wasteful expenditure they may fancy. New Zealand can hardly be prepared to face the outside criticism which such an advertisement of her poverty would create. Admittedly the times at present are such as to involve a certain amount of hardship on all classes, but this phase

"will pass. Once introduce the thin end of the Communistic wedge, and the country will rue the day.