CHILD SUBSIDY.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1922, Page 5

CHILD SUBSIDY.

HELP FOR POOR FAMILIES. SHOULD SINGLE MEN PAY? NOVEL PROPOSALS BY M.P. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. When the House resumed, this evening the f first order of the day was the Child Sustenance Bill, introduced by Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South). Before the second reading waa proceeded with the Premier intimated that the Bill, in hia opinion, was an appropriation Bill, and could not be passed by a private member. He, however, did not wish to interfere with members’ opportunity of having the second reading debate,, but he wished to £tate the position now so that later on, when he raised a fatal objection to the Bill, he would not be misunderstood. Mr. Mitchell, in moving the second reading, said the Bill was intended to be in the nature* of a “tax on the single man to keep the married men’s children and assist to relieve the latter of some of their responsibility. The children of poorer parents were not now receiving a reasonable chance of making good, and this ultimately would have its effect on the adult life of the country. He urged that a committee be set up to go into the whole question, and that the Government next session should introduce legislation giving effect to that committee’s recommendations. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said there was only one source from which the family man could be assisted and that was the Consolidated Fund, to which everyone, single and married, had to contribute. The effect of this Bill would be to keep the single man single, find would not help the family life in any way. Mr. O. Hfiwken (Egmont) said the Bill was opposed to the natural instinct that every man should keep his own children. The Bill was ,a measure of the theorist, and there was no common sense in it-

Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said something must be done to help the family man, because there was no doubt restriction of family was going on all round them., and that was a bad thing for any country. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) strongly supported the idea of a committee to go into and endeavor to find a solution of what was undoubtedly a great national question. Mr. H. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) reiterated the Labor Party’s contention that the only sound solution of the problem was to draw upon the Consolidated Fund. The Hon. C. J. Parr outlined the State activities in the interests of children, which were in advance of similar operations in most countries. The financial basis of the Bill was unsound, because it was an attack on wages. To take assistance from the Consolidated Fund must mean more taxation, and he thought the present State policy was the best, viz., encouraging the married man to help himself. Mr. Mitchell replied, and the Bill was read a second time. The Speaker ruled that the Bill was an appropriation Bill and could not proceed.