PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1321, 24 June 1897, Page 10

PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

The second sitting of the Private Benefit Societies' Commission was held yesterday morning week, Mr Tregear (chairman) and Major Steward, M.H.li., being present.

AN UNTRUE STATEMENT. Prior to taking evidence Mr Tregear said a statement had been made at Lyttelton by a witness, J. G. T. Wood, of the Lyttelton Lumpers' and Wharf Labourers' Association, which had been found to be absolutely untrue. W ood said that at a meeting of the Association in question a motion bringing the Association under the Conciliation Act by registration was proposed, and carried, the majority voting for the proposal. Wood gave the Commission the particulars of the voting, which were —6l for registration, 59 against. On being re-called by the Commission and cautioned to be careful of what he was saying, Wood repeated the statement, and said the minute book would confirm his evidence. When the Commission rose, Mr Gray, shorthand writer and secretary, was asked to procure the minute book. An extract was secured from it, and the Commission then found that Wood's evidence was entirely false, that the vote of the men had been againt registration, and that instead of the figures given by Wood, who was secretary and ought to have known, they were —58 for, G 3 against. This, continued Mr Tregear, was a matter of importance, because it had been represented to the Commission that the preponderance of the employers on the Association Committee enabled them (the employers) to force the Association to remain unregistered, their influence being paramount. The evidence, as he had said, turned out to be quite false, and in face of that a letter which the Commission had since received from Wood, stating that he had made an error, was quite worthless. As secretary Wood should, have known that the proposal to register was lost. . THE UNION COMPANY. The taking of local evidence concerning the Union Steam Ship Company's Benefit Society was then proceeded with. William Jones said he was secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union. He had seen the evidence taken at Hunedin relative to the Union Company, but had had no time to make notes. There were a number of paragraphs in the reports which needed refutation. From what he could see, the members of the Society down there did not indicate things very clearly or put matters in a x>roper light. Some of them had not said all they knew. They might have gone a little further, but possibly they were not in the same position as the men in Wellington, who had never been near Dunedin. The men here were not so frightened as they would be if located at

I the head office of the Union Company. j There were a great many in Wellington ,• who could give entirely different evidence J —men who had been asked time after time jto join the Society. One seaman who had j been an Oddfellow for years left to join | the Union Steam Ship Company's Society iso as to get employment. He was not available to give evidence, being away on a collier. There were other instances of a like nature. In 1891 and 1892 this matter was pretty warm, men being forced to join. Witness belonged to Court Sir George Bowen, and had been working before the mast. Consequently he knew that on the signing of articles every six

months men had been told that if they didn't join the Society they would have to leave. Some of them were in their ship still, having joined the Society. Major Steward: Did they belong to a friendly society ?

Witness: One was a Druid. He knew of the agreement that had been come to with the Union Company, which provided that there should be no compulsion after September 30. New men were being asked to join all the same. He would swear that. He wouldn't say, however, that they were led to believe they would.be given preference. In two instances men were told when signing articles that it would be advisable for them to join. Mr Tregear: vVhat did you understand by " advisable ?" What was the alternative ?

Witness : The alternative was that they could do the other thing 1 .. Mr Kennedy had called on witness and refuted the statements he (witness) had written to Dunedin in this connection.

Major Steward: Are men given to understand that it is necessary to join irrespective of whether they are members of a friendly society ? Witness: These men I am talking of belong to no society. One had just come from England, and when asked by the purser to join said, " I've only been in the country five minutes;" Major Steward said that all pursers had now got circulars saying that they were not to take men for the Company's Society who belonged to friendly societies. Witness, continuing, said that there might be no objection to the Society if it was properly constituted and there was no compulsion used. Mr Tregear: Can you tell us whether any friendly society has suffered from the men having to join the Union Company's Society ? Witness wouldn't say, but he knew that the balance-sheet of Court Sir G-eorge Bowen showed 17 unfinancial for the half-year, ten being seamen. He knew nothing beyond that. Major Steward: Supposing the Union Company's Society was registered, and the men properly represented, would there be any objection to the existence of the Society ? Witness : Well, I don't think the Company should have anything to do with it. The Company can always bring pressure to bear upon any working committees appointed. Its power was so great. Even if it were represented to the extent of only a fifth it still possessed the influence. It could sack men at any time, and it needn't necessarily have anything to do with the Society. Although there was no compulsion it was a case of " you must." The witness was questioned about a number of other matters.

Robert Aitcheson, of s.s. Stormbird, formerly with the Union Company, said' he was compelled to join the Company's Benefit Society when it was formed. He was told to either join or pack his bag- and go. There were other men on the Takapuna at the same time who were married and were compelled to join, although they belonged to friendly societies. They kept the two societies going because they had belonged to the shore lodges so long that they did not care to give them up. The employees had no control of the Society at all.

The next witness tendered evidence on condition that his name and testimony be not published.

The Commission rose at noon. The Commission resumed at 2.30, when Mr Geo. Fisher, M.H.R., took his seat. The condition of the provident fund of the Bank of Now Zealand was enquired into. The first witness was

Richard Wain Gibbs, who stated that he was accountant in the head office of the Bank of New Zealand. He 'had been in the bank's service over 18 years. There was an organisation known as the Bank of New Zealand Officers'Guarantee and Provident Association, of which he was secretary. Witness produced the last balance-sheet, which showed the officers', guarantee fund on top, the details of tho financial position of the provident fund in the centre, and a statement of the investmpnts, &c, of both funds (amalgamated) at the bottom. The amount of tho guarantee fuud was set down at .£IO,OOO. The provident fund figures showed that on October 31st, 1895, the fund totalled £125,188 03 3d. The year's working—up to October 31st, 189G — was then set out. The receipts were : Officers' contributions, £953 16s 9d ;

interest, £6BIO 10s ; surplus money from guarantee fund, £IO3O lis : total, £8794 17s 9d. The disbursements were :—Pensions, £4089 ; proportion of land tax, .£4Ol lis 4d ; actuarial investigation fee, .£193 17s ; amount paid for management, £4B ; legal charges, .£22 ; printing, &c, .£6 5s 6d : total, £4761 8s 2d. The amount of the fund on October 31st, 1896, was £125,221 9s lOd, of which .£104,758 was invested ; balance in bank awaiting investment, £20,463 5s Bd. There are no current liabilities, but a contingent liability as follows : —Amount received from guarantee fund and repayable in case of need, .£21,236 lis 7d; pensions at the rate of .£4006 9s per annum current at 31st October, 1896. The total funds of the Association (guarantee and provident) are as follow:—lnvestments —Mortgage of freehold security, £92,718; New Plymouth borough debentures, .£10,927; Oamaru

■. J Harbour Board debentures, .£400; fChristi : church drainage loan debentures, '.£1400 ; i j freehold acquired under mortgage, .£3539 ) | lls7d; balance of freehold acquired under I i mortgage,£'s29S 5s lOd j amounts due on acj count sales, «£470 6s 9d : total, ,£114,75S 4s ' j 2d. Balance in bank awaiting investment. i j -£20,463 5s Bd. Mr Tregear : Are there not many of the clerks dissatisfied with this provident J fund ? Witness : No doubt thero is dissatisfaction. Mr Tregear .• Did not some 36 clerks . petition recently for the abolition throughout the colony of the fund ? Witness : Yes, and we felt the pulse of those concerned, with the result that there was a strong feeling in favour of abolition or reconstruction. Mi Fisher: Can you give us the figures ?." Witness: The voting in favour of the distribution of the funds was practically about 90 per cent, of the staff. Mr Tregear: Is it not a fact that the clause relating to the distribution of the fund provides that the trustees can make any new laws or rules they please ? • Witness: Yes; section 23 gives the trustees [all the power, and they can : dominate the whole Association. m Mr Tregear: And in case the bank gets into difficulties, is it certain that these moneys subscribed by officers would be treated as a preference claim ? Witness : The fund is practically distinct from the bank. I don't think any Court would allow it to swoop down on the money—to permit highway robbery, so to speak. Mr Fisher : But the power is there, and the consequent trouble. Continuing, witness said the trustees had sole control; there was no surrender value. A man might go on paying money for years and years and never get a penny if he left before 60. And if he died his relatives would not be entitled to anything. If the board chose to gjve them something, it would simply be an act of charity. It was a fact that men who had entered the bank very late in life had retired on big pensions. That was what the juniors who contributed to the fund were complaining about. Those pensioned off were getting more than their due. The bank had subsidised the fund at the outset with .£25,000, so that in the event of any pensions becoming due before it got properly under way it could bear the strain. Major Steward : Has the staff no voice in the management ? Witness: None at all; that is the chief cause of dissatisfaction. Major Steward: Is it not reasonable that the officers should object to contribute to a fund when there was only a very remote contingency *of benefiting themselves P

Witness : Yes, I think they have good cause for discontent. Mr Fisher: How much do some of the pensioners draw ? Perhaps I can assist you; how much does Mr Murdoch get, for instance ? Witness: .£SOO a year. Mr Fisher: And Mr J. Murray ? Witness: Oh! he dosen't draw that amount. There are 28 pensioners altogether, the disbursements in this connection being now .£4BOO. Witness promised to let the Commission have a list of pensioners for their private information, length of service of those drawing them, &e. THE MANAGER'S EVIDENCE. Archibald Davidson Somerville, manager of the Bank of New Zealand, was the next witness. He said there was dissatisfaction among the officers at the constitution of the fund; they could not do anything at all, the trustees having absolute power. And if anything went wrong with the bank there was no clause in the rules which separated the money of the fund from those of the bank. Since the officers of tho Colonial Bank joined the Bank of New Zealand a new fund had been created. This fund was a much better one than the other inasmuch as there were surrender values provided for. The officers who were members of the eld fund would no doubt like to join this one, but they couldn't; membership with the old one was compulsory. A circular had been sent round the bank's branches asking for an expression of opinion relative to the old fund, and the voting was against it. Mr Fisher: And why did not the trustees give effect to the wishes of their officers and abolish the fund ? Witness did not know. If there was a distribution of the old fund, so much capital would have to be set aside for pensions. This pension fund at present was getting woi se and worse. It was not self-support-ing because there were no new contributions. All new officers joined No. 2 fuud. Major Steward : Then the old fund is not beneficial to the officers at all ? .' Witness: Nut in the least. A man might go on paying in for 40 years and never get a penny. Major Steward : Oh; well, we will have to ask Parliament to do something for you, Mr Somerville. The Commission then rose until 10.30 next morning. The Commission met on Thursday morning. Present—Messrs Tregear (chairman), George Fisher and. Major Steward, M's.H.R. BANK OF AUSTRALASIA. The first witness called was Robert Gemmoll Gibson, manager of the Bank of Australasia. He said there was a provident fund connected with tho bank. He had no documents showing how tho fund was worked. It was administered in London. The bank paid the contributions for the junior clerks until they received sufficient to pay themselves. Mr Tregear : Is there a defined limit ? Witness said he was not seized of the full particulars. Ho could fcell them more about how it affected himself, but he believed that the limit up to which the bank paid was .£9O. The fund, be thought, was an admirable one in every way. If a man became an invalid or was sick got his full pay for three months, and if he continued ill he would get three or six months longer on half-pay and then his pension. If he died his wido '

received his pension for five'year3, and if J she was not alive the children got it. J Mr Tregear V And for these benefits do you I have to pay a heavy percentage ? 1 Witness: No. Ours is also a guarantee fund, and the.bank assures us on much more favourable terms than we could be assured outside. The bank subsidised the fund most handsomely. They could not retire, if they were in good health, until they reached the age of 00. Major Steward : Is any person who leaves the bank to go into another busines entitled to a pension. "Witness said No. He could not tell them anything about surrender values. Mr Tregear : Then you have nothing but j good to say of your provident fund? Witness: No. We have 143 branches in all, and there is the greatest satisfaction Of course " there are malcontents, but they don't understand the benefits theywill derive from it. lam only voicing the opinion of the officers, who are perfectly contented with it. Major Steward: Can you tell us upon what basis the pension is calculated in the case of an officer dying ? Witness did not exactly know. The contributions from the salaries covered the guarantee as well as the allowances They had an equitable arrangement whereby an officer getting .£9O paid per cent, of his salary, and so did the man who got .£IOOO. BANK OE NEW SOUTH WAT/ES. Bolton Merlin Molineaux, manager of the "Bank of New South Wales, said there was an officers' guarantee and provident fund connected with his institution. The fund was administered in Sydney. It was primarily a guarantee fund. The surplus above .£25,000 was set apart as a provident fund. He believed the bank gave a subsidy to the fund at the start. Mr Tregear : What happens when a clerk becomes ill or is dismissed ? Witness: He leaves all behind him. We have no surrender value system. Mr Tregear : Is there any benefit besides the pension? Witness : No ; but I might tell you that when a man is ill he has full salary all the time, up to six months, at any rate. The bank has been exceedingly good to its staff when any of them fell sick. Mr Tregear : Do you know if there has been any grumbling among the seniors or juniors about this fund ? Witness :' There is a little grumbling, but those concerned don't know anything about it. If they remain in the service they will receive considerable benefits. Had they gone to an outside guarantee society they would have had to pay much more than they do now. Some grumbled at leaving all their contributions behind when they left the bank. Major Steward: Would it be necessary to raise the amount of contribution in order to establish a surrender-value system? Witness : A large number of officers would be willing to pay more if the pension was made larger. It is not very large at present. NO PROVIDENT FUND. Gorman William Mcintosh, manager of the National Bank, was called, but it was ascertained that there was no provident fund in connection with his institution. They had a guarantee fund, he said. It was primarily and entirely a guarantee fund, from which no pensions were drawn. As guarantee funds did not come within the scope of the Commission, no farther questions were asked the witness. • THE UNION BANK. Arthur Longden, manager of the Union Bank of Australia, said they had a provident fund. The juniors had to pay at an increased rate to cover entrance fee. The rate was 3£ per cent, in the case of ail officers after the first five years. At the start it was five guineas per cent.and then 3£per cent., which covered the contributions to the guarantea fund. They had no surrender value system. Mr Tregear: In the event of an officer dying at the age of, say, 50. after being in the service 30 years, would there be anything paid to his widow or children ? Witness : The pension accrues only at the end of 55 years, but at the end of the first ten years of service, if ho dies, the widow draws for five years, but ten years of service must have been completed. Mr Tregear : la there any dissatisfaction in the bank about payment of contribution ? Witness: No; we go into the thing with our eyes open. Mr Tregear: Do you think the fund is beneficial to the officers ? Witness: Most decidedly. Mr Tregear: Has the bank ever subsidised your fund? Witness: At the start it made a handsome donation, and from time to time since has augmented the fund. The fund is not controlled here.

Mr Tregear: Is there any dissatisfaction through there being no control over the money subscribed ? Witness : Each man has a vote, and uses it? THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND AGAIN. Additional evidence concerning the Bank of New Zealand was then taken. John Baird Hobart, accountant, said the majority of the officers of the bank looked upon the fund as a grievous infliction. The best v*ay to describe it was this : They had to pay at the end of every December and June. If anybody could get into the bank on either of those occasions they would hear it referred to as the " swindle fund," the " improvident fund" and the " fund to rob the widows and orphans." The clerks were in anything but an amiable frame of mind at those particular periods. Mr Tregear: There is no benefit at all except pensions to officers of mature age ? Witness : That is so ; nor is there any sick benefit or benefit for widows. He could instance the case of the late R. O. Waddy, who contributed ever since the fund started, and the provident fund could not eive his family anything when he died. The officers made up a private subscription. There is a rule that a donation may b 3 made to widows, but it is in the form of cnarity. Major Steward : Supposing a man has been 15 years in the service and becomes incapacitated, would he oe entitled to a pension? Witness : Well, one of the rules might be taken fco apply, but I don't think he would have any claim. Mr Tregear : Do you consider clause 23, which gives the trustees sole power, in any way fair ? ~,„.. Witness said it only aggravated the affair. As had been said in the Legislative Council last year, the fund was formed to compel men to stay in the service. The fund was called a" " carrot." It was always held in front of the unfortunate bank men to make them follow it. donkey like, as long as those , in power- pleased. I Mr Fisher : Do you know of any officers of j the bank who got a pension before they) reached pension age ? •

Witnes3 -. Well, Mr John Murray wa3 one. ! The rule was made elastic and comfortable for him. . I here i 3 one point about this fund. It was wrong at the very beginning. After its inception benefits were held out to officers for which they never paid. If they joined their contributions would be baaed upon their payment in the bank. If it had been a proper fund, and started on a proper actuarial basis, they would have had to pay loading. Mr Murdoch may have paid about .£3OO into the fund altogether, and then he drew a pension of «£6OO a year. He had heard this sum was reduced to .£SOO a year. Mr Murdoch and Mr Murray drew the highest pensions. Major Steward : You say the .£6OO a year has been reduced to .£510; has there not [ been a process of reduction going on in other cases ?

Witness : Yes. They cannot do otherwise than reduce pensions owing to the errors made at the inception of the fund. Two pensioners, Messrs Fildes had had their pensions reduced. Major Steward : A man might be turned out of the bank with a pension of LOO a year, and as he got older it might dwindle to £5 a year. Witness said that Mr Larkworthy had a pretty big pension, which would be subject to reduction like the rest. He was a very prominent man in London, and got more favourable treatment than the ordinary clerk. Mr Fisher : The Association seems to exist for the benefit of a few people. Witness : Yes, for about five only, including Mr Butt, Mr Embling and Mr Parfitt,. of Sydney. Two or three others get the benefit of it. After 1 joined the bank, when my private guarantee had expired, I was asked to join the bank's guarantea and provident fund, and was told that if I didn't I would have to leave.

The next witness was James Dudley Tripe, general ledger-keeper in the Bank of .New Zealand, who bore out what other witnesses testified to. They had no voice in the management of the fund, and everyone paid in without the slightest hope of deriving any benefit from it. Actuarially, the fund was on a false basi3.

Major Steward -. Then the officers are paying iu on false pretences. Witness : That is the point we view it from.

Charles Bainbridgo Trimnell, general led-ger-keeper, and Henry Graham Snoclgrass, who was at one time connected with the bank, also gave evidence.

a trustee's testimony. William Callender, Assistant-Inspector of the Bank of New Zealand, and one of the trustees of the fund, paid that ho had been a trustee two years. The administration of the fund was entirely in the hands of the trustees, subject to the approval of the Board. Mr Butt was a trustee and the other was the general manager, who was now on his way out from England. Mr Tregear -. Will the fund be able to pay the pensions as they fall in ? Witness: The pensions now being paid are what the actuary advised wo were to pay. Certain changes have taken place lately which necessitated the discussing of the whole position. A new fund was started, which takes a large number of subscribers from the old fund. It is very questionable what advantages the old fund will be able to confer. My opinion is that the matter must be rectified, and that very promptly. A comparison seems to have been made between the two funds, hut I don't think ouo can be drawn myself. The old fund has two sections guarantee and provident sections. The new fund is purely a fidelity fund, and makes no provision for pensions, but it provides for surrender values.

Mr Tregear: Is it not a fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction amongst" the officers of the bank about this fund ?

Witness: Yes, that is so. A provisional poll was taken, and the majority were strongly in favour of the abolition of the fand.

Mr Tregear : Can you tell us the reason why the trustees have not complied ? Witness: Well, a solicitor informed us that wo couldn't divide the fund without an Act of Parliament. That is one cogent reason. No scheme for division was jdaced before members—only a provisional poll taken. Mr Fisher : Do you think Mr Butt has been unduly favoured ? Witness: I don't quite see that he has been favoured at all ?

Mr Fisher : He was appointed Government Auditor, was he not ? Witness: Yes; his remuneration was still paid by the bank. Mr b'isher : Could he remain an officer of the bank and be at the same time Government Auditor of the bank ? Witness : No. Mr Fisher : But he is now returning to the service of the bank. Witness : I don't know that officially. I've read it.

Mr Fisher : If he is returning to the service of the bank he had left, had he not ceased to be a member of the Association ? You see any other officer foifeits all rights, and Butt returns and takes all those advantages. Witness : There is a provision in the rules which provides for such a case. It is an addition to the others. I was not a trustee when it was made. Mr Fisher : Who makes these amendments and additions ?

Witness : The trustees, subject to the approval of the directors. It must have beer made in 1894.

Mr Fisher: Do you know of any officer being placed on the pension list before reaching pension age ?

Witness .- Yes ; there are somo of that class under rule 5, which provides that anyone with an unblemished record for 20 years, who has to leave through an error of judgment, &c, may be pensioned. Mr Fisher : Are there any other cases ?

Witness : No, not to my knowledge. Continuing, he said that appeared to bo some misapprehension about the fund and the bank. 1c was quite distinct from tho bank. He had made suggestions concerning the management; o£ the fund, believing that the officers should be represented.

'The next witness desired the omission of his name and tho non-publication of his evidence.

John Gifford Fildes said ho was formerly an officer of the Bank of New Zealand. He had been in the service of the bank 31 years. His ponsion amounted to ,£257 a year, but subsequently he was reduced to <£ls'i. It came like a bolt from the blue. Ho thought it was a settled thing for life. If it was true that another officer had been reduced from £ooo_to J-'oOO, instead of by two-fifths as his was, it was unfair, and had he heard about it before his voice would have bean raised in protest. There might be still further reductions according to what he had heard, the fund being not self-supporting. Ho would have liked to have seen the fund wound up instead of being allowed to dwindle away to

nothing. He was retired from the bank compulsorily; being treated very harshly and very unfeelingly. He was put out at the age of 57 instead of GO, after 31 years' service. That was one of the i ruits of the bank being ruled by a London Board. He had to go at two months' notice. Making the ag© of retirement at 55, as in his case, a lot of old officers were thrown out, their places -were taken by men who took less salary, and the pension fund was taxed : consequently the bank had to pay less and the fund more. 1 he Commission adjourned until next morn-

ing. > The Commission met at Parliament Build- | ings on Friday morning ; present—Messrs ' Tregear (ehairmanj, George Fisher and | Major Steward, M.'sH.R. j BANK OE AUSTRALASIA. ( Clement Winter, inspector for New Zea- J land, was the first witness. He said there \ was a pension fund in connection with the ' institution, bat no other benefits. It was I primarily a guarantee fund. If there was any overplus beyond a certain amount it went to a provident fund. Mr Tregear : Can you tell us what proportion of income is taken from clerks to acquire this pension ? Witness : Well, junior officers pay nothing for the Inst three years. If they are suitable at the end of that time, they are put on the permanent staff. The bank pays their coii- j tribution for two years, and after that they I pay themselves, at the rate of 3* per cent. Mr Tregeac : And supposing anyone leaves the bank ? Witness : Well, he would likely got three j months' pay, which would be more >han his contribution. If a man was, say, 25 years iu the bank and then died, his widow would j?et full pension for five years. If the officer had children and no widow his children would get it. Major Steward : Of course the pension is fixed on rate of salary and length of service P Witness : Yes. Sixty is the retiring age. The bank would assure the pension no matter what happened to the provident fund. I know of officers not entitled to anything who have gono out on half-pay, and got <£SOO a year. One old officer who was not up to his work was asked by the bank to retire. He was somewhere about 54, and not entitled to a pension until 60, yet they paid him .£SOO a year in the ?nterim. In answer to other questions, witness said the fund was controlled in London; it was no doubt a capital thing for the officers. THE UNION BANK. Samuel Hallamore, resident inspector of the Union Bank of Australia for the colony, said they had a provident-fund in connection with their guarantee fund. The guarantee fund was kept at a fixed amount, and everything over that was a provident fund. It worked very satisfactorily. The claims of the fund had been very small, and there was a large amount to carry to the provident fund. With regard to contributions, the juniors got no direct help. They paid con- | tributions at the rate of 5 per cent, for five years on the amount of their salaries ; after ! that time it was reduced to 3£ per cent, rf e j might say that, compared to what the men j would have to pay to an outside guarantee society, the amount was small. An officer ' was entitled to retire at the ago of 55. Alter a man had been in the service 10 years and became incapacitated mentally or bodily he could, provided the administrators were satisfied as to the' circumstances, retire on pension. Mr Tregear : Supposing he served 20 years and then left the bank, would he get anything ? Witness replied in the negative. This provident scheme was originated and endowed very handsomely by the bank. Mr Tregear : Have the subscribing officers any control over the investments F Witness : Well, two out of three of the trustees are officers of the bank, and are consequently of ourselves, and they exercise the greatest care before making investments. It an officer were to die after 20 years' service his widow would be granted a pension for five years. He considered the fund in a perfectly safe condition, lie had no fear that the fund would eventually taper to vanishing point. They took every precaution. An actuary was consulted overy year as to tho contributions and working of the fund, If it was thought that a larger contribution was required the officers would subscribe cheerfully, but they did not anticipate anything of that kind. THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.—STATEMENT BV MAJOR STEWARD. At this stage Major Steward remarked that it had been pointed out to him that in the event of Parliament dealing in any way with the Bank of New Zealand provident fund in the way of putting it on a new footing or winding it up, justice would not be wholly done supposing moneys were distributed amongst those who were at present officers of the . bank. It had been suggested that former officers of the bank who had left after paying contributions for a long term were entitled to something, and if so that the Comuv'ssion might require a return showing tho number of men who had left the service since the institution of this fund, and the amount of contributions they had paid. Personally he did not know whether they should ask for such a return, 'i here were two or three sides to the question. One was that the enquiry was not specially directed to the Bank of New Zealand, but when the Commission's report came before Parliamer.t it would be competent for the House itself to order such a return, or prior to tho sitting of Parliament for Ministers to apply for it. Then thoro I was the other view : He would not bo disposed to recommend the breaking up oil the fund altogether, but rather that it should bo put upon a proper basis. lie thought it 1 would be a pity that pensions shcuid bo com- * pletcly knocked on tho head. A return of I the character mentioned would involve an j 1 immense amount of trouble, to say nothing of j the great expense. The Commission might refer to this suggestion in its report and i point o»t that there was such an element in '■ the case;. Mr tisber thought that if there was to be a j division it would be amongst the officsrs now j in the bank. Ho would 710', want to do those • outside the service au injustice, but the difficulty was to discover the men who h;ui left and who had claims, and then to reconcile these with the claims of those now in active service. There would be conflict there. Major Steward pointed out that there would probably be cases of former officers of I tho bank .having died, and the fact that thoy had left relatives would considerably involve " the matter. Mr Fisher paid that under .such, circumstances any steps taken in the direction mentioned would mean tho introduction of a vague and exceedingly uncertain and possibly unsatisfactory element. Major Steward mentioned that the matter had been represented to him, and he thought

hie would mention it. He favoured the place* ' ment of the fund on a proper basis rather' than its dt-struction. The matter then dropped. EUItTHEU EVIDENCE. Burnett Murray Litchfield, assistant in- ' spector of the Bank of Jv'ew Zealand, said ho had been in the bank 2S .years. He considered I the fund one-sided. The staff had no say in j the management of the Association. The I trustees had absolute power, and controlled j ail investments, &o. I Mr Tregear: Have you any idea whether 1

the investments shown in the balance-s-heet , are of the value there htated, or if they re- i quire writing down ? j Witness said that as far as he knew the in- \ vestments were all first-class. The present scheme was a degenerating one, and was not j on a sound basis. They were not getting any new members owing to the starting of iSJo. 2 fund since the amalgamation with the Colonial Batik, and the life blood of the Association was new membership. The fund was distasteful to the vast bulk of the staff. There was no doubt, the tendency at present was the disappearance of the fund altogether. He would like to mention something con- i cerning a matter that had been before the Commission on the previous day. He referred to an amendment in the rules which was said to have beneficially affected an officer who had left, but who wa=» now returning. He alluded .to Mr Butt. Witness was a trustee when the amendment alluded to was made. He thought it was a judicious one. Mr Butt was an old officer of j the bank, and ho had severed his connection in a sort of way. That was to say, he had left to take up other duties intimately connected with the bank, and as his salary was paid out of the bank it was only right to conserve to him the continuity of his privileges. He had the right to return to the bank ; he paid his contributions while absent. Mr Fisher: Might I put it to you in this way : That the alteration of the rules was 1 made by the trustees to specially conserve j the interests of Mr Butt? | Witness : I would not like to take it in that j lisrht. It was an alteration which was a deI cided gain to the staff, and I have always endeavoured to consocve their interests. I Some officers are now working for the Assets Board and others for the auditor. Consequently, that altered rule applies to them also.

Mr Fisher : Was that alteration made about the time of the appointment of Mr Butt as Government Auditor ? Witness : Yes, that gave rise to it. Continuing, witness .said that the «£25,000 origninally given by the bank to the fund provided loading for elderly officers who would necessarily come on the iund sooner than others. Mr Murdoch was over GO years old when he got his pension. He had contributed for about ten years, and so far as he could remember so had' Mr Larkworthy. Major Steward : Do you think that men who have left the bank a few years have any equitable or moral right to participate in the event of a division of the fund? Witness : It depends upon how they left. They may have left for their own advantage. Major Steward : Do you think it would be better to put this fund upon a more sound footing, and give the staff some proper share in the management, or to abolish it altogether and divide ? Witness could not quite say at the moment. There were alternative arguments. Ho thought that if the fund was put on a more satisfactory footing by a reasonable increase of contributions to it by the staff, and if the bank would further fortify the fund, it would be a most desirable thing to have a pension scheme.

THE A.M.P. SOCIETY. After the luncheon adjournment Edward William Lowe, resident secretary in New Zealand of the Australian Mutual Provident Society, said they had an officers' provident fund connected with their society. It had been established in Sydney, and ,£2-3,000 bad been voted by the policyholders at the outset as a nucleus. The fund was managed by trustees, two of whom wore officers of the staff. The fund wag established in 1883, and all officers contributed 1\ per cent. on their salary. This applied to those who just joined as well as the rest. If it became necessary, the fund not being strong enough, contributions could be increased. Officers could retire at the age of 60, but retirement was compulsory at the age i of 70. A man could be superannuated after 20 years' service. At the age of 60 they received pension on the average salary of each completed year of service up to a maximum of 40-60ths. If any officer became permanently incapacitated after having been on the _staff for more than 10 years, but less than 20 years he got one month's salary for each completed year of service. It was possible that in the future more benefits would accrue to officers if the fund could stand it. At present there was no surrender value system, no provision for widows and children and no sick fund. He considered that the interests of the officers were well attended to by their two representatives on the Management Board. Charles Augustus Schultz, accountant of the Australian Mutual Provident Society, remembered the formation of their provident fund. As a whole the members were in favour of it when it started. The actuary wanted to retain the officers ; the beet of them were leaving at the time. The members of the Australian Mutual Provident formulated a scheme, and the provident fund was the outcome. They voted .£25,000 because there were a number of old officers in the service who had to be cond'lcirod. This £23.000 bore a certain

j amount of interest, but interest had dropped since then, and the fund was not ho strong' as ! i:. was thought it would be. However, it ! showed a surplus and was in a £fOod position. All officers contributed ; there had been only two annuitants since the origination of the scheme: one was dead and the other had been granted a gratuity on account of illhealth. All clerks had also to assure their lives with the Australian Mutual Provident according to their salary, and assign tho insurance to tho office for the benefit of their wives and families ur relatives. George Lambert, receiver of rents !x> tho Public Trust Office, said ho was formerly on the Australian Mutual Provident staff. He had regularly contributed to the provident fund after its inception, but on leaving didn't get a penny of what he had paid in. Tho payments had been compulsory. Ho had never been on tho fund, and thought he entitled to his money. It was true that he* had signed an agreement relative to the fund at the outset. That fund conferred certain i benefit, but it was upset by tho board in ' Sydney, and a fresh one formulated, from which the benefits were missing. He had never ftianed a bond in reference to the second fund. Witness said that no information relative to tho working of the'fuud wa3 available except a bald statement, and if anyone asked for particulars it was looked upon

as an impertinence. He suggested that tire Australian Mutual Provident office's werefrightened to tell all they knew. ._ Mr Fisher :• i>o you mean to say thau the> administration of the oath to those who tendsr evidence has not the effect of eliciting the truth ? . Witness : I am not saying that, but I say this that if I was in the Australian Mutual Provident Society to-morrow I would not have spoken as I have to-day. The provident scheme is no doubt a good one, but I think it. should be administered by disinterested* persons—the Public Trustoffice, for instance. That would prevent the possibility of the tundi being tampered with for any other purpose —if the Board did want to use it for any outside purpose. The Commission then adjourned. It holds its next sitting in Auckland.