FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 57, 25 July 1912, Page 6

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

CONSOLIDATION v. CENTRALISATION. The Friendly Societies in the Dominion are greatly interested in the subject of consolidation of their sick funds. A copy of an important address on the sub- | ject, which was delivered at Dunedin j recently by Past Grand President Brother A. H. Shelton of the Ivanhoe Lodge, Dunedin, has reached us by courtesy of Mr E. A. Gibson, secretary of that institution. In it Mr. Shelton extols the, principle of consolidation, and condemns, the system of centralisation adopted in New South Wales. "'I want you clearly to understand," remarks Mr Shelton, "that consolidation does not necessarily mean that great evil ''centralism." I do not object to any form of combination (consolidation) of members or lodges which can be shown to be of mutual benefit, but I do object, and always will object, to the insidious method of capturing the lodge funds and depriving lodges of their freedom and independence by the establishment of a costly and unnecessary central sick fund. An entire revolution of the lodge finances should not be made because a few branches are not well up in the valuations and other branches have been improperly planted .where they cannot grow. It is certain (that lodge deficiencies can be removed without all the lodge funds being centralised. . . . In the Australian colonies various societies are experimenting in central sick fund-forming under the title of consolidation, and it seems likely to spread like an epidemic over our Dominion. The microbes began their work with Mr Trivett's grasp of power in New South Wales, where in five years from 1904 to 11)09, he like a magician, transformed the net deficiency of ,£271,020 into a surplus of £00,391 by means of consolidation. As he centralised the sick fund the idea has taken root that the society that adopts a central sick fund is on the high road to fortune. I am able to successively combat this idea by showing from Mr Trivett's figures and statements the wretchedly small part played by the central sick fund in attaining the great 'result, which, as I will show, was really done by the increased contributions which members were compelled to pay, and the Government subsidy to the societies. When Mr Trivett took office the affairs of the societies in New South Wales were in a deplorable condition. The reserve funds did not amount to half of those in New Zealand, who have funds averaging £l9 13s Id per member. The affairs had been carelessly administered by the Registrars and by the lodges—benefits too large and contributions too low. a:;, 1 . t;u funds not' properly invested, books and records badly kept, secretaries incompetent, and the central body's control and guidance of the weakest'character. So bad was the condition that public opinion supprted the N.S.W. Parliament in carrying a special Act practically calling upon over 90,000 members of the friendly societies to increase their contributions. Imagine a New Zealand Government forcing such an Act upon us! It would not be justifiable, and could not be done. But it was done in New South Wales. . . . I say that the lodge funds need not have been taken from the lodges' individual ownership, and I am confident that had Mr Trivett been trained in all that goes to make and keep together a friendly Society branch he would have combined the interest resources* without centralising the sick funds. It is a very bad thing for the lodges to have the control of their own money taken from them, and the lodges should never have been deprived of the sole .responsibility of looking after their funds and preventing their improper nsp - • • I wish to touch upon one

point of great importance. That is th right of one branch to the money of an other. I consider that one branch ha no more right to the money of anothe than a .person opening an account in th< Post Office Savings Bank has to share in moneys deposited by others. And for delegates to meet, and by a majority vote force an unwilling' branch to hand over its own property, I consider grossly unfair, and a crime against the basis of a friendly society, equity, and justice. It is a very. grievous thing that society branches should be driven to secede by such action. I feci that I cannot blame them, for they are justified in defending their rights and privileges. In opposing centralism we arc charged with selffishness, but we are certainly not fairly entitled to this condemnation, and it seems to me that promotors of centralised funds a,re open in many ways to be more truthfully charged with selfish motives. I often wonder if they would support one central fund for the Dominion, for if they really want big funds that is what they should go in for. Once more I want to urge: do not centralise your funds. Join together for mutual benefit, and support and maintain our time-honored systems free from outside interference and domination.