G. HOGBEN AND M. FOX.]

57

1.—14

71. Take the case of a woman who is forty years of age now, and who is retired at fifty-five : she would get £52 ?—Yes ; the minimum. 72. And what contributions would she pay ?—What is her salary ? 73. Take any salary you like ?—Say £120. If her age were forty, she would pay 7 per cent. 74. On, say, £120. Is that about the average salary for a woman at that age ?—Yes. She would pay 7 per cent, on £120. 75. About £8 per year ?—Yes ; £8 Bs. ! 76. And she would get a pension of £52 ?—Yes. 77. She would pay £8 a year for how many years ?—Fifteen years. 78. Now take a man under similar circumstances—forty years of age, who retires at fifty-five, and who pays for fifteen years. His average salary would be, what ?—lf you take the whole time, his average salary would be just about £200. 79. He pays how much per cent. ?—7 per cent. 80. Fourteen pounds a year ?—Yes. 81. The woman pays £B—he gets only the same as a woman who pays £8 ?—Of course there is the £200 for the widow in the case of the men. There is no benefit of that kind for the women. And there is also this: that a large number of the women retire and get only their contributions back again, whereas of men at forty-three 725 per 1,000 reach sixty-three, and very few of them retire after fortythree. 82. They are paying contributions all the time, are they not ?—Yes ; but with the women, out of 100 who enter at twenty-three the number who remain until pension-age is very small indeed. It would be only about eight or nine out of 100. They all pay in in order to provide a pension for a few, and a return of contributions for the others. As a matter of fact, the women's side pays be ter than the men's side—very much better. The Chairman : Mr. Fox says that of the whole subsidy required for males about a quarter is necessary for that £200 to widows. Mr. Hogben : If you take the whole number of those who pay for the pension and those who get it, the contribution is not heavier in the case of the men. There would be such a small number of women getting the pension, and they would be all paying as if they were going to get it. The amount that the women contribute is much more in proportion to what they get than is the case with the men. 83. Mr. J. Allen.] Taking the original members between forty and sixty, do not the original male members between forty and sixty pay more in proportion for the benefits they will receive under the Bill than the women ?—lf they all stay in and the women all stay in ? 84. Yes ?—Yes ; that is true, between those particular ages. 85. Mr. Buddo.] Have you taken into consideration the question of providing a little more attraction for the entry into the scheme of those teachers between the ages of forty-five and fifty-five now in the service ?—I do not quite catch your question. 86. I was at a meeting of teachers interested in this matter some little time ago, and, notwithstanding all the discussion prior to a resolution being arrived at, one of the teachers came to me and said, " My salary is £200 per annum, and my age over forty-five. What will my annual contribution be ? " " Eighteen pounds," I replied. Then he said, "Is it assumed that I have to pay up to the age of sixty-five before getting the minimum pension of £52 ? " I said, " Yes." " Well, then," he said, " I am not going to do it, because I shall have to contribute £360 for a pension of £52 " ?—He could not get any other investment as good, or anywhere near it. Take the benefit of £200 to the widow, if he dies. Look at any insurance table and see what the premium would be at age 45. You give him, besides, more than he could buy in any office as a pension for that amount. 87. For his £360 ? —Yes; for the accumulated amount of his contribution with interest at 4 per cent. 88. lam not discussing whether it is a good insurance or not; the fact is that it does not have very many attractions for the teacher. I have heard expressions from a number of them. The point with them is the teacher aged about forty to forty-five I —l can make a suggestion, but the matter is a question of policy and of how much the country is ready to pay. Somebody has to pay for it if there is an additional benefit. The best way I can see of meeting that difficulty is to give some allowance for back service, but it would cost a good deal of money to give full allowance for back service. The lightest burden is to make a minimum of something like £65 and allow half back service. That makes a scale in proportion. Or even a higher minimum than £65 might be provided, with one-third back service. If you give a scale in proportion they will be satisfied, and a scale in proportion is made by allowing for a proportion of the back service. 89. That is the suggestion you have to make ?—lf you want to meet that difficulty you will have to pay for it. Instead of making the minimum £52, you can make it £65, or even £78 ; but, of course, the higher you make it the more costly the scheme is. I should always be inclined to say, Give even a small proportion for back service in order to make a sliding scale. 90. Mr. Hall.] Could it not be done in this way : could it not be made so that the man who stayed in the service till he was sixty-five should receive the full minimum allowance, and that the one who retired at sixty should receive a smaller allowance ? There is a feeling of discontent amongst the older teachers. They feel that it ought to be graduated. The man who had been paying in £18 a year would receive only a few paltry pounds—something between £50 and £60, and it is said that it would be unfair that the person who is now of the age of sixty could retire at £50, while the man who had paid about £310 would only receive a small amount extra ?—That is true. That is the same argument that was used eighteen hundred years ago, when the men' who hadfgone into the vineyard at the first hour objected to those who came in later being paid the same as themselves. They are all getting more than they pay for—more than their money is worth B—l, 14.