Public Service Retiring Age

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26204, 30 August 1950, Page 6

Public Service Retiring Age

The suggestion that all public servants should retire at the same age, perhaps 60, in all cases and irrespective of the length of their service, is made in the annual report of the Public Service Commission, recently presented to Parliament. The commission makes the suggestion rather diffidently (“ It seems “ . . . that there is a strong case “ for a common retiring age, per- “ haps 60 and says little to support it. The commission adduces only the argument that the present range of retiring ages—s 6 to 65 gives the commission “ some prob- “ lems when administrative ap- “ pointments are being made ”, and

disposes of it by saying that “ the “ commission takes the long-range “ view, and leans to the appoint- “ ment of younger men ” over others who have only a short time to serve before retirement,, while always considering the interests of efficiency. This seems no more than the commonsense way of making appointments. But the commission has nevertheless directed attention to an important issue, which does not only, or perhaps even mainly, concern the convenience of the commission and the wishes of public servants, but also bears on the efficiency of the service. Public servants usually retire after 40 years’ service (or more) at the age of 60; at the age of 65, irrespective of service; or voluntarily after 40 years’ service, irrespective of age. If the commission’s suggestion were adopted the service would no longer lose many experienced and comparatively

young men who elect to retire after 40 years’ service, though this drain on its strength is decreasing because of the rising age of new entrants. On the other hand, the commission’s suggestion would deprive the service five years earlier of the possibly even more useful officers who enter it as adults. As the commission points out, most men with professional qualifications are in this group; and, earlier in the report, the commission says: “ The service is seriously under- “ manned in most professional “ groups ”. To retire professional men compulsorily at the unreasonably low age of 60 would aggravate this shortage. There seems no reason why a capable lawyer in the Public Service should retire at 60, when he would not retire, if he were a magistrate, until 68, or, if he were a judge, until 72. An alternative to the commission’s suggestion would be to raise the general retiring age to 65, with the condition that after 40 years’ service officers could retire at 60. The Public Service might at first oppose any raising of retiring ages, because retirement on superannuation at 60 has become the goal of many officers and because a later retiring age would delay the promotion of younger men. The first objection will not weigh so heavily with older men, many of whom will probably think that, while they are well able to work, retirement is not in their own interest. Nothing seems to age a man as much as prematurely stopping work. It is interesting that the average age of appli-

cants for the social security age benefit, according to the Budget, is 64. As for promotion, public servants might have to wait longer; but towards the end of their ser-; vice they would have a longer period in higher positions. The' commission and the Public Service, in any consideration of retiring ages should take into account the efficiency of the service, which can ill afford to lose valuable men while they are still in the prime of life, particularly if they wish to remain at work.