OLD-AGE PENSIONS IN NEW ZEALAND.
[To TIIR EDITOR OF THE “SeRCTATOR.") SIB,—A letter of mine which you were good enough to publish in November, 1906, met a suggestion made by you that the effect of the Old-Age Pensions Act in New Zealand had been to deter persons from joining Friendly Societies there. It drew your attention to figures showing that in the six years after the Act came into operation the membership of the Friendly Societies had grown from 35,501 to 47,302. This, you will agree, is a very large proportionate rise, and, standing alone, would seem to negative the suggestion that the Pensions Act had in any way injured our Friendly Societies. Furthermore, I pointed out that in the six years before the Pensions Act the increase in the membership of the Friendly Societies had been very much smaller than in the six years following. I did not assert that these figures were conclusive, but did say that they laid a heavy burden of proof on your leader-writer. A well-known New Zealander, Mr. Duthie, of Wellington, now falls foul of my argument, and protests against my comparing the two six-year periods with each other (Spectator, March 2nd). His ground is that the first part of the earlier period was a time of extreme depression, and ought not to be taken into comparison with the prosperous years subsequent to the establishment of old- age pensions. New Zealand, says Mr. Duthie, only began to recover from depression in the year 1896. It would be more correct to say that New Zealand began to recover from de- pression in the year 1895. Nor do I admit Kr. Duthie' suggestion that the Friendly Societies in a country like New Zealand are more likely to suffer in their membership in dull times than would similar Societies in a large country. How ever, I had no desire, in taking six-year periods, to make any special use of the severe depression in the years 1893 and 1894. I merely took the six-year periods because that is the longest time for which official figures are available for the years subse- quent to the Old-Age Pensions Act. If the figures bad been available for seven years instead of six, I would have made the terms seven-year terms, because the longer the period the more useful it is. Still, let me, for the sake of argument, leave out not only 1893 and 1894, but 1895 also. What is the result ? It works out thus. In the three years before the coming into force of the Pensions Act, Friendly Societies gained 4,596 members. In the first three years after the Act they gained 5,735. In the second three years after the Act the gain was 6,066. To most minds. I think, these figures would seem to supply no foundation at all for the assertion that the Pensions Act has seriously interfered with the natural growth of our Friendly Societies.
Mr. Duthie, indeed, is of the contrary opinion. But hew does he arrive at it? Chiefly by treating the year 1899 (which. happened to be a very good year for the Societies) as though it belonged to the period before the Pensions Act. That is quite unjustifiable. The Act was in operation on January 1st, 1899. Never at any time has the Old-Age Pensions Act taken up so great a share of public opinion or appealed so strongly. to the imagination of the poorer classes as throughout that year. The rush of applications, and the speed with which claims were registered, are matters of history. It might well have been thought that the Friendly Societies would have suffered in that year, if in any year, from the competition of the new statute from which so ranch was expected. Instead of that, the Societies did very well indeed. Mr. Duthie, indeed, may point out, as he does, that in the year 1901 the increase of membership fell very considerably. On the other hand, it rose again sharply in 1902, and thereafter kept a good level. I cannot see that there is anything whatever in Mr. Duthie's argument unless we are to admit that, because among the years just preceding the Pensions Act we note in the one solitary year 1898 a very sharp rise of membership after several years of utter stagnation, therefore a succession • of extraordinary rises in membership must have continued to come but for the passing of the Pensions Act. But, Sir, I think you will agree with me that the custom of basing arguments in economic controversies on the returns of a single year has been pretty thoroughly discredited in England since 1903. He would be a reckless controversialist who would trust to it now.—I am, Sir, &c.,
W. P. REEVES,
Previous page
