CHILD ENDOWMENT

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18891, 5 January 1927, Page 7

CHILD ENDOWMENT

NEW SOUTH WALfig

SCHEME. ,- J TO COST 17,000,000 YBftKfe] (took oca omr ooußoonua*} SYDNEY, December N. Following the decision of Mr A. B. Piddington, Industrial Commissioner in New South Wales, that the bade wage should remain unchanged at £4 4s per week, but that aa won at po»sible a childhood endowment acheme should be effected by the Government, there was a great outburst from the trade unions. Expectations had been raised that the wage would be increased by at least 6s per week, and it was a great blow to the Industrialists that, in the terms of the plain-minded mas, "their own Government had let them down." It mattered not that the Industrial Commissioner acted independently of Ministers and State officials la his cost of living enquiry, and their influence, A Labour Government was In power, and its power should have been used to increase the baeio wage, According to trade union officials, Mr Lang realised this. In the ordinary coutsb of events, the childhood en* dowment scheme that Mr , Piddington favoured would take months to eniot. He desired, if possible, that the scheme should be a Federal" one. The Lang Government had months of legislation before it, and its path recently *U been, and for the next few months will be, an extremely rocky one. Consequently it appeared to trade unionists that their basic wage was to remain * unchanged at £4 4a per week. - Six Shillings Per Child.

But Mr Lang sprang a bombshell by announcing at the end o£ last weak-** sort of Christmas box for workers with large families—that the Cabinet bad agreed to a child endowment achene that would be pushed through PariUr raent immediately after the New Year. The plan adopted is Mr Piddlngton a own suggestion. Briefly, it U that » worker shall be paid 6s per week for each child in his' family under the age of 14 years above the baslo wage. The scheme will apply to all workers, whether under ft State or Federal award, in receipt of salaries or wages up to £750 per annum. The endowment wm become operative from the date of mPiddlngton's decision, Deoember 15*. The Premier (Mr Lang) estimates that the cost of the scheme to the State will be £1,500,000, and the cost to employers will approximate O P« cent, of their wages bill ThU isjaV culated at about or £ total cost to the State and employers of about.£7.ooo,ooo par »»»«»: *S is estimated that the total number' «* persons, including parento, who. mm beneßt nnder the scheme, will be ea under:— lonAftn Where there is one child ... «JWW. Where there are two children Where there am throe children IJWHj. Whore there are four children i*»,OW Where there are five children 7G,wv Where there are six childron and over ... .»• °*i wu Scheme Condemned. ~ ' The whole scheme is regarded as bad by the people whom it wiU afieot .tn*. most~th ß employers. They ooatend - that industry has been WPPortin* imaginary children by the fixation of the basic wage in the past as tna means of providing for a man, his wife, and two children, and they contend that combined witli the endowment, soheme, the present basw wage 0* **i' 4s, now really the basis of the oost ot living for a man and bis wife, » too „■ high. Again, it is declared that we maximum salary of £750 a WW(« ' far too high a limit. The omploy**; too, are not appeased. Although tne, wage is satisfactory to some, most oon»' ,' ,sMer that the soheme is too greet an, „ - experiment, and that the k basio, wage -• should have been given a «tolgh£oot increase o» the old basis, while-otnet» believe that it will only is a Federal concern, Now South Wejesv t they point out,- will be handicappeo' in competition;witb othor'States py'» scheme which affects onto this State. ' * „ The commonsense view, of ooorse, » ' /; that the soheme will hit the Ttfjr par- , sons it is designed, to help most. _-A.ll •*. employers' experience is that'WW i, most reliable and conseienttons tag* , are those who have families to enpporti , But when two men with appawrHy * equal qualifications apply fof a-pet> ] . tion, one with no fatally or but one <* ,> two children, and the other with row,/ ■;, five, or six children. wojiW th* em-., ->; nloyer be anything wt hnmenif w* derided to slcm up the man wtthth* ' \ smaller family, because Ms wonld oost his business leas? No »W\ 'lation In the world will be able Wplf-* * vent this discrimination, and thereto, ;; lies the greatest obstacle to the WB* '..'■ ceesful operation of the soheme,, .'-'-;'*;,. ,'•