47

I.—B.

F. JENNINGS.!

the age-limit under the Provident Fund is 45, and while the National Provident Fund provides a little extra accommodation and the extra five years, 40 is the limit with friendly societies. 11. Can you give us an expression of opinion of how your order views the National Provident Fund—does it view it favourably or with hostility? —Speaking personally, there are between six hundred or seven hundred members in my lodge, and I have not heard them express any opinion in terms of hostility. Any evidence lam giving is personal. 12. Mr. Harris.] Your proposal, then, is that the Government, instead of paying 2s. 6d. a week as mentioned in their proposals, that benefit should be increased to ss. ? —Yes, and eliminate 65 years of age and substitute 60. 13. Do you not think the mere fact of the State undertaking to contribute ss. per week towards the sick-benefit will have the effect of causing the friendly societies to relax their supervision over the payment of sick-pay and indirectly be the means of more malingering, and cause the sick-pay to increase accordingly?—l do not think that for a moment—decidedly not. I would not be in favour of reducing the rate of contributions until such time as the Government subsidy places unfinancial lodges on a sound footing. 14. So that that means with the proposed Government subsidy you would be increasing your funds? —Endeavouring to place the house in order. 15. It would be simply for the benefit of the society and not for the members?— For the benefit of members. 16. It could not be of practical benefit to members, inasmuch as you would not suggest decreasing their contributions or increasing the benefits, but you would be putting the funds on a financial basis? —When the subsidy brought about a financial position, then it would be for the lodges or the branches to consider the advisableness of reducing the contributions. 17. What about those societies that arc in a financial position at the present time? —It might be optional with them. They might increase their benefits. 18. Do you not think it would have the effect of a big influx into the financial societies, with the result that the unfinancial societies would go to tin , wall? —It is difficult to compare a friendly society with a trading concern : a friendly society may be financially looked upon as unsound, but from a trading point of view as a friendly society it would be able to meet its engagements. 19. Hon. Mr. Beehan.] In regard to the meeting you had in 1906 when subvention was offered, there was no such thing as the National Provident Fund in force then?— No. 20. Was not the reason that subvention was turned down the fact that it was considered a charity proposal? —Yes, exactly so. 21. You do not consider it a charity proposal now, considering the National Provident Fund and the other things? —Undoubtedly not. 22. In regard to the Government scheme, is it not a fact that there never has been any trouble with the grand lodges or districts, as the case may be, with regard to the death claims? — Never, to my knowledge. 23. All the death benefit funds have been consolidated?— Exactly. 24. And consequently there has never been any case, so far as you know, where the amount has not been paid promptly? —Not one case in our society. 25. Do you not think it would be better to adopt the New South Wales scheme of payments for contributions to this benefit in place of the £15? —As a matter of fact, both proposals appear to me to be favourable—either proposal would be satisfactory. I and my colleagues think the Registrar's proposal is the better one of the two, with the addition suggested by the Druids. 26. According to the Government's proposal they suggest paying a sum for sickness at any age after twelve months' duration—that is, 2s. 6d.?—Yes. 27. That is, supposing you come down to the ss. a week?— Yes. 28. New South Wales make it ss. a week?—We pay 7s. in our case. 29. And I understand you to say also that you are in favour of ss. a week for 65 years of age and over? —Eliminate 65 and substitute 60. 30. Do you not think that would increase the amount very considerably?—l hardly think so. Of course, speaking generally, the English statistics for higher ages would be more favourable than those. Men live longer in England than they do here. 31. The whole effect of this is to prevent lapses, is it not? —Yes, because after a man gets up to 60 years of age and members of his family get married, it is possibly a very severe strain on him to keep going. 32. What effect has, say, three or four members suffering from chronic sickness on a medium or small branch?—lt may detrimentally affect the sick-fund. 33. Practically wipes it out?— Last year I think we had six or seven getting £18 a year, and there are ten now who have been on all this year. 34. And that is what it is proposed to subsidize?—My opinion is that the subvention scheme of the Government would be of very material assistance in eliminating all this trouble in the shape of continuous sickness that the friendly societies that are not in a strong financial position have to contend with. 35. Mr. Hayes.] What did you mean when you stated that a friendly society may be actuariallv unsound and at the same time commercially sound?— From a general business principle I think I explained that to Mr. Beehan. lam not aware of any societies in New Zealand that have ever repudiated any death claims. 36. You have never heard of any society in New Zealand that has had to be wound up owing to it being unable to meet its obligations?— Yes, several small societies, but the exact reasons I am not aware of. 37. As regards your suggestion to make the subvention ss. a week after twelve months' sickness, you are aware that in many societies in New Zealand ss. is the outside allowance that is paid after twelve months' sickness? —That is bo.