COMPULSORY LIFE INSURANCE AS A PREVENTATIVE OF PAUPERISM.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1049, 20 June 1883, Page 2

COMPULSORY LIFE INSURANCE AS A PREVENTATIVE OF PAUPERISM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The scheme which Major Atkinson has so carefully elaborated, and so persistently put before the public, both by the Press and on the platfoun, may seem very feasible ; and no doubt with some modifications is so, provided the colonists of New Zealand can be pnrsuaded to consent to the measure. But there are, notwithstanding the member for Egmont’s view of the matter, some rather pertinent objections to the manner of operation by which he proposes the scheme should be worked ; and looked at in some lights the whole scheme may be taken exception to. There is but little to be said against the chief points urged upon, viz., the fact that as the Colony is adding to its years of existence, in the same proportion the class requiring benevolent aid is increasing. That is pretty clearly proved by reading the yearly statements of any of the Benevolent Societies, especially in the larger centres of population. And, considering the possibility of Compulsory Life Insurance, or a similar measure becoming a recognised and established fact, though it may not be during the present Parliament session, yet perhaps the question will be debated at next sitting, and as it seems to be admitted that something should be done to prevent the Colony resorting to tlie ! Home country poor rate, it would not bo inadvisable to consider _ —tlvA—nnm pn tanrysystem of laying up against a ‘ rainy day’or any of the accidents or untoward circumstances of life. Does it not favour too much of the arbitrary laws of the continental nations of Europe, for instance, the German military measure, which' compels every man of a certain age to be drilled and officered till he is ; like a complete clock-work soldier, or, as if turned out of a wholesale factory “ made to order to say’, in effect, that to prevent the possibility of any member of our colonial population being a burden upon his fellow colonists, those who won’t save shall be made to save, and that those who would save, but would fain do it because they were convinced of the wisdom of such a provision for the future, shall be compelled to do likewise ? Does it not seem to be over-riding in rather too off-handed fashion all our pre-conceived motions of British liberty ? If such a measure becomes law, the State in fact, if not in so many words, says to each of its members of population, “you may not do as you please with the whole of your yearly income but you shall hand over a fixed portion to your fond and paternal guardian, the Government, who will magnanimously, if you reach old age, or if sickness or accident overtake you give you back your own again, only excepting you should join, or have joined, a Friendly or Mutual Aid Society.” Could Major Atkinson see any way of taking the compulsory clause out of the proposed Act, it might not be such a bitter pill to swallow. We have not too much real liberty in even free and enlightened Britain or its dependencies that any of us feel inclined to lightly or carelessly part with a jot or tittle of it, except some very unanswerable and

weighty reason ,m given. There is another objection which might be urged against any Government causing its people to contribute for their own comfort in age or sickness—that is, the personal duty of each individual to see, as far as possible, that he is not a burden upon charity. And again, charity is not usually so palatable a condiment to those who have any selfreliance, that anyone (except a certain class composed chiefly of the genus loafer) is by any means anxious to live .upon the capricious doles of others. In a young countiy, surely with the wages obtainable by the working classes, it ought not to be so very difficult for any, if they were willing, to provide in some effectual way for future calamity. It is of not a little interest to the taxpayers of this colony to trace put the true causes of poverty and pauperism. The Colonial Treasurer himself says “We are a hard d.iinking and smoking, as well as a hard working community and while, as he also says, millions are ■, spent in liquor and tobacco, and thousands only are laid by as savings, the principal cause of pruperism is not far to seek.”

The prevention of poverty lies; largely in the hands of the classes most oppressed by 'poverty* It is obvious that if we as a nation were to spend less in acquired : wants, there might, as a natural sequence, be more funds available for Public Sayings Banks, Friendly Societies, &c. ; and it has scarcely the ring of true consistency for a member of the Legislature to say we as a people only' - save so much' and spend in drink so much, and in the face of that to argue that it is the duty of the state to compel people tp prevent themselves from becoming paupers, the state meanwhile licensing a traffic that is one of the most fruitful sources of poverty, to say nothing of worse, which exists.—l am, &c., A Lover of Liberty. ;

At the R.M. Court yesterday, the charge against Mr F. O’S. McCarthy of illtreating a cow Was dismissed.