THE NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME.

Evening Star, Issue 6030, 10 July 1882, Page 1

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME.

Tin-: Colonial Treasurer, when dealing in the Financial JSrafcejurtut with the question of hospitals and charitable aid, remarked that “ ilie present system “or want of system ” of providing iho necessary funds is “ irritating anu “ unfair to most, if not all, parties con- “ cerned in the charitable administration of the Colony/’ and stated hia conviction that the time had come wherein the subject will have to be dealt with on some comprehensive principle. He proceeded to say that there were practically only three eouiscs open—a poor rate supplemented by private benevolence ; large grants from the Consolidated Fund also thus supplemented ; or “a system of national “assurance,” The very idta of a poor rate, he thought, was regarded with general repugnance, whilst grants from the revenue were most undesirable. He intimated his intention, therefore, to submit a scheme for national assurance for the early consideration of the House, which was “ within the bounds of practical poli- “ tics.” In moving the resolution, which he is tu propose this evening, Major Atkinson will no doubt enter fully into the details of this scheme. The resolution in itself, whilst fully setting forth the objects to be attained by compulsory insurance, says nothing as to the crucial difficulty; namely, the legislative means by which compulsion is to be enforced. The question of national insurance as a cheap, practical, and popular means of abolishing poor rates was first, we believe, raised in recent times by the Bev. W. L, Blackley in a paper contributed to the ‘Nineteenth Century ’ in 1878. li is understood that the scheme therein elaboiated forms the basis of the proposals of the Colonial Treasurer. The more important features will not therefore be without interest. The paper attracted much attention throughout the United Kingdom, and was admired by all for the philanthropic warmth of heart which inspired it. A favorable view was net, however, generally taken by economists and politicians, who considered a great compulsory 7, national system or insurance against sickness and old age to be founded on bad political economy, and to be impracticable. Mr Blackley commences his article by stating certain propositions, which, as regards the Home Country, appear to be self-evident, and which apply with more or less precision to New Zealand. These are in effect: That the providing against destitution in sickness and old age is a general duty ; that this duty is generally neglected ; and that all past and present measures, legislative or philanthropic, have failed and fail to correct this neglect. To this part of the argument it is unnecessary to refer, since the conclusions must be admitted. Improvidence in this Colony 7 is not the fault alone of the wage-earning classes, but runs through every section of society where the dependence of the bread-winner is in work either physical or mental. Laying up for the inevitable days of sickness and old age is the exception—it is to be feared a very rare one; and as years roll on, and there is naturally a far larger proportion of the old and infirm than at present, since in a young Colony, for obvious reasons, the proportion is email, the necessity will arise for a poor rate unless providence is enforced on men whilst they are in a position to provide for the future. As a means to this end, and as a remedy for a state of things acknowledged to be most unsatisfactory, Mr Blackley proposes national insurance—to be made compulsory by statute. The details of his scheme may be briefly sketched as follows: —Th« foundation of a national friendly society, wh’ch he calls a “ National Club,” in which every man, so soon as he begins to earn money, should be compelled by law to make an assurance against sickness and infirmity, the security being the national guarantee, and it being an essential principle that the payment for the assurance should not be precarious, as all periodical payments are, but should be paid down either at once in cash or by instalments extending over a limited period. Mr Blackley recognises that if the nation undertakes such a work it must be by an organisation which reaches every parish in the kingdom, and he suggests that the post office should be utilised for the purpose. “ The National Club then,” he says, “ acting through every post- “ master, should requite a fixed pay- “ meat to be made by each eu ner of “ wages as he reaches the age of say “seventeen years. The periods of such “payments should be fixed as might “ seem most convenient to the payer “ That is, supposing the total sum n “ quired to be £ls, the payer migtu. “elect to pay it by deduction from his “ wages (to be made by his employer) “ either of 6s per week or £ls in one “ year; of 3s per week or £7 10s in each “ut two years; or 2s per week or £5 “ in eaclt of three years—the ad van - “ tage of a proportionately smaller “ contribution being given to those “ who complete their cont ■ ibution at the “earliest age.” The am--am of £ls is calculated, following the tables of a well established friendly society, the “ Hampshire,” for a young man at the age of twenty years ; and on this payment the sum cf 8s a-wcek during sickness until the age of seventy, and alt . that age a pension of 4s a-veek. car

b o safely guaranteed. Mr >' v v:a. -.y jliiiOt ri the average National Club rate in hia scheme at £l4 for the sake o: safe calculation, but he thinks there is

strong reason to infer that in the course of a very few years this sum would prove possibly twice as much as what wovjld be actually required. In ordinary friendly societies, he says, every contributor, when sick, claims the stipulated relief ; but “in a national compulsory “ club every man, not merely tho earner C 5 of the lowest wage, must be a contributor, and a vast number of these “ would belong to classes either too il proud to claim a weekly half- “ sovereign, or unable to state on “ their certificate that they were “ prevented by sickness from earn- “ ing their usual wages.” We have only been able to give a general idea of Mr Blackley’s proposals, which it will be noted are sufficiently comprehensive, and would compel every man, whatever his position and prospects, to insure in the National Club against sickness and destitution in old age, unless he prefers to contribute to a friendly society whose rates are certified by the Government actuary. We noted above that the proposals were on their promulgation condemned generally by economists and politicians ; and on high authority, if we recollect aright, it was staled to be “ inconceivable that a statesman uf “ the first class could be found to take “the scheme in hand.” In the very first session, however, after this confident assertion, the Earl of Carnarvon introduced the subject in a most lucid and telling address in the House of Lords, and his views were endorsed by several peers well informed on questions of the sort, and disputed only, or chiefly, on grounds of objection which did not apply to the proposal actu diy made. The objection supposed to be at the root of all others, namely, tho tyranny of compulsion, was not oven mooted in the debate, it appearing to to be realised that the compulsion required for national independence was far lighter and fairer than that now submitted to by all thrifty men for the production and encouragement of national pauperisation. Lord Carnarvon especially pointed out that “ not one penny of the cost of carry*ing out the proposal need be “ thrown on the country, while the i; subscribing individuals would have “as security the national guarantee.” The objections raised in the House of Lords do not appear to have been very muchtothepoint, and were founded, Mr Blackley subsequently asserted, on a misconception of the scheme. The ‘ Times,’ in commenting on Lord Carnarvon’s speech (June 5, 1880), approved unreservedly of the principle of “making thrift compulsory,” but doubted whether such proposals could 1)6 given effect to in tho face of public opinion. “ The purpose is admirable, “ but we question the proposed means, “ The Government could not safely “ undertake all that Lord Carnarvon “ would impose upon them j and it they “ undertook a part only, and that tho “ least attractive part, the money they “ icoidd demand in advance icovdd not “be paid very ivillinyly, and could “ scarcely he exacted in the teeth of anyH thing like a «jmend adverse opinion.” The words we have italicised, we conceive, put the practical difficulty of such a scheme in a nutshell; and here the Colonial Tieasurer, it is to be feared, will find a stumbling-block in the general ignorance of the people in social economics.