THE H.B. TRIBUTE. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1911. NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 63, 24 February 1911, Page 5

THE H.B. TRIBUTE. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1911. NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND.

Th* importance to the people oi New Zealand of the National Pro ▼ident Fond is so great that wt need no excuse for again referring to it editorially, especially as oui object is to bring the measure under public notice and to make known its advantages and disad vantages. Mr. Robert Hayes, superintendent of the fund, has issued a circular letter seating forth the purpose, method, and benefits ol the measure, and giving an illustration how it trill profit a contributor. He points out that it often facilities for voluntary thrift on a basis of mutual contributions by the State and individuals exceeding the provisions of any other known State system in the liberality of its benefits and the extremely low contribution rate. No other system, he says, so unrestrictedly increases the allowances in proportion a* a contributor’* family responsibilities increase, ■ and this without additional payments —a feature of the scheme which w ; ll appeal, adds Mr. 'Hayes, to any man who gives a thought to the future maintenance of -those dependant on him. So far so good. But the superintendent of the fund only gives the bright and cheerful aide of the scheme. Let us investigate and see how it affects 'those who are disqualified from enjoying the facilities offered for voluntary thrift with a State subsidy. The qualifications for a person wishing to join the fund are: Residence _>n New Zealand, age *bet ween 16 and 45 years, and income not in excess of £lOO a year.' Thelatter qualifi-; cation, the income limit, is the ! thing which spoils the whole

■cheme, being unfair and tending ‘ to penalise one class for the bene fit of another. The government i-e., the people, subsidise the con tributionß to the extent of one fourth of the amount paid into th< fund. The money which provide this subsidy comet from the pocket of every individual in the State, and ve have yet to learn that it ii •A® to compel one man tc pjy *n insurance premium and pro vide a provident fund for another nan and yet be 'debarred from joining that fund himself. The iniquity of such compulsion is made evident in the following illustration. B is a young man, say, uf It years of age. He is unmarried, earns £196 per annum, and has no one depending on him. His income being under £2OO a year entitles him to the benefits of the National Provident Fund, and his premium* ore subsidised by one-fouth of their amount by the State. Cis a man, ■ay, 30 years of age. He is earning £2OB per annum. He is mar-j tied, and has, all told, a family of ■even to support. He is a cleverer? •Okker, and in consequence gets fiM a year more than B, and because of this, notwithstanding the! fact that he has seven mouths to'

fill and aeven bodies to clothe, as ■gainst B’s one, he is deniH the benefits of the Government scheme, find more than this, every week ■hen B enters the p<t-office ,o pav bis contribution, s.*y, for example, lays on th* cot _.?r i/-, c. figurspeaking, has to g. •» with, him and place on E’s shilling threepenny piece, for .vhich hereto nothing in return. And .fur j her, again, if the rare? to provideState subsidy to the fund is I through the Customs, the'

bigger family C has the greater will ’ be the proportion paid by him to subsidise B’s contributions. The thing is iniquitously unjust, and -t has only to be extended to its full limit to pauperise families whose income is over £2OO per year. To be fair and just—to be ultimately the success everyone wishes it to' be—the scheme must, as long as contributions carry State subsidy, be made a truly national one. By a great misnomer, the present scheme is called a “National” affect one section of the community effect one section of the community, to create hardship on another equally deserving section. An amendment is needed to make ’t worthy its name.