THE GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL SCHEME.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLII, Issue 4322, 18 December 1874, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL SCHEME.

TO THE SDITOE OV THE LYTTELTON TIMES. Sib, —In my former letter, I endeavoured to point out that, although the rates of premium charged by the Government under the new Industrial Insurance scheme were higher in proportion than'those of the ordinary tables for yearly, half-yearly, and quarterly payments, they were, nevertheless, by no means excessive, when the increased cost of collection, and the risk incurred, were taken into account. I also shewed, that the premiums were considerably below those of the only English Company, which bod to any great extent, entered upon this class of insurance, and that the efforts of that company to meeet the' requirements of the working classes had been attended with the most unqualified success. By your kind permission, I wish now to refer to some other objections which have been urged against the scheme, and particularly to those in a letter published by your contemporary, the Press, on Nov. 30 last, and bearing the: signature of “ Thomas Napier.” , . _ t I give Mr Napier full credit for his good intentions towards working-men, in warning them to beware of the Industrial scheme, as of a “ viper,” but it occurs to me, that the class referred to would: probably have been far more benefited by bis kind efforts in theit behalf, if he had made hithself more completely master of ,his {facts, and had the language in which his letter was couched been less vituperative, and his adtioemore practical. Passing, as beneath notice, the abuse of the Government, in which! it is his huthour to indulge, I find that, apart from the large portion relating to thq high rates of premiums, and which 1 practically answered in niy last communication, the isubptaooe of the letter amounts merely to this ; , i 1. That the OddfeSov# (Fdrtstirs in Canterbury do apt* a# Iliqtyselveß of their opportunities of paying their subscriptions weekly or- fortnightly, preferring tp do so at or egd of tjje garter. Ergo, working men in Canterbury dan afforji to pay quarterly premiume-for-life insurance. 2. That under the . Industrial system a lapsed policy of £199 13s, the premium oh which has been seven dayaiuhpaid, can only be revived by tho payment of arrears and k fine of £2. ' ' ‘

3. That under the ordinaryeystem, Qoverh,ment insurance policies for benefit of wife and children are absolutely proteiiwd ’ fron/claims of creditors. -i . , -

4. (The postscript}. That working men do not, as a rule, receive their wages weekly, such payments being extremely exceptional. To consider tie first and last together,—is it a fact that, as a rule, working men do not receive their, wages weekly ? I have had some years’ experience in Canterbury, and during that time have mixed a great deal with work-ing-men. .It is a matter, ho doubt, difficult to prove, but could proof be obtained, strongly inclined to belive that Mr Napier would find himself mistaken. lam perfectly aware that there are numerous instances in which the monthly system prevails, but from the very necessities of the case, the weekly paymeat of wages must be very generally adopted. A large proportion of our working population were, not long since, newly-arrived immigrants, with wives and families to support, and jit would be almost impossible for them to “make ends meet” if they had to wait till the end of the month to meet their current weekly expenses. The statement of Mr Napier that very fefw Oddfellows or Foresters pay their subscriptions other than quarterly; may be correct. It is not my intention to dispute the fact. But itwould.be a very interesting subject of enquiry, to what extent that fact is connected with another, deduced from unquestionable returns from the whole; colony, and extending over several years, viz., that the proportion of “ lapses ” of-members of Friendly Societies is. nearly 50 percent of the,entranta! .. -jOne is strongly inilmra to ask whether, if the subscriptions had been paid weekly or fortnightly,.instead of being allowed to accumulate to a .comparatively large sum, tpe numbers of-those lapses would not have been. diminished by at least one half. One word more on thas point.lf, a* appears by Mx Napier’s remarks, working-men generally 4re able to* pay ptemiutai for, the! ib-, Buranoc.of with comparatively few exceptions, they remain uninsured? ■ - |

Evidently something more was required than .was formerly put-Jiafore them, as an inducement to insure. It remains to be seen whether To come now to the second notable weakness in Mr Napier's! argument. He unfortunately writes,end rushes into print, on a sib;, jeot in regard to which he is butimperfecsly’ informed. When he speaks of a fine of two pounds staring in the &oe, the defaulterjof seven days, he evidently refers to the paragraph headed “Eeyival of Policies,” on page 7 of the “ Guide ” published by the Government. Had he read that paragraph more carefuHy, however, he would have observed, the words “not exceeding” immediately pre.odding the amount of fine named. This amount is the limit, beyond ,Whioh, by the regulations, the department is not allowed, in, any case, to go, the actual fine being, in the event above atatedjonepermy on every £lO assured, or exactly one shilling and eightpence! fir-.. s On the remaining point, it is necessary to .remark .that Industrial as well as ordinary polities'are protected by the Act from the claims of creditox*,-but with this difference, that to secure this advantage the former mfust have been.in exig tepee for.two years, while the latter, if effected exprestly fot the benefit of, wife or children, are immediately so protected. It is undoubtedly true that in the ordinary branch tin, after three years, demand from the Government the full surrender value, in cash, of his policy, but this is at best a questionable advantage which may well be dispensed with in the Industrial branch —the full benefit of the policy will then be sgßOfWi'Kf tHWPWfI WF® “ "ccordanoe with the original object of insurance, viz., a paid-up poUpj for, a sum equivalent to the surrender Mr Napier suggests that the Government, should have adopted the wise policy of the>

1 '.. . ~ British Government u» regard to this matter. What will h»r.M» Whtn h»: is ■ informed that the weekly Charged by the Colonial Government Art lessLinptoportiOnthan the fortnightly or even monthly premiumi of ths Impend Government P In conclusion, Sir,l think when folly investigated, the Industrial policy of the Government will prove to bn- highly advantageous to the Working classes, and that the wives isttd children of members of Friendly Societies will have just cause of complaint against their husbands and fathers if they refuse to avail themselves of its benefits. , Your obedient servant, SFEBO MELIOEA.