FORMER PUBLIC SERVANTS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27441, 30 August 1954, Page 8

FORMER PUBLIC SERVANTS

SUPERANNUATION PROVISIONS RECENT /ALTERATIONS CRITICISED (Nfw Zoclond Prew Association) WELLINGTON, August 28. "The Post and Telegraph* Association feels that, the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) was not well advised in his Budget decision on superannuation,” said me acting general secretary of the association (Mr J. G. Churchill) in a statement. The recommendations of the Archer Committee had been rejected for something which to Mr Holland appeared more valuable, but which in reality was of no value at all to the most deserving cases, he said. There had been a lot of discussion about superannuation, said Mr ChurchiH, and the Post and Telegraph Association had deliberately “held off” until the whole thing could be examined. It had made its examination at its annual conference of delegates. ‘On the evidence available, the increase in the minimum subsidy on pensions from the Government Superannuation Fund will benefit only those who, either by earnings or some other means, have placed themselves above the income limit of a social security age beneficiary,” he said. “The fact is that a large number of supferannuitants rely on social security to augment the pension they receive from the Superannuation Fund. For them, the increase announced by the Prime Minister is no increase- at all, because what they gain in extra pension will be lost by an egual reduction in social security “A distressing feature is that this latter group is the very one the Prime Minister evidently intended to assist.” The pay-out from the Superannuation Fund would be heavier, and it seemed likely that the increase would appear in the Government subsidy to the fund, said Mr Churchill. If the recipients got the benefit of that extra money, there could be no reasonable objection, but it seemed likely that the Social Security Fund stood to gain the greatest advantage. “One obvious way of adjusting the position so that an increase to lowerpaid superannuitants was effective was put forward as a major recommendation by the Archer Committee, Mr Churchill said. “This suggestion was that the allowable income for social security purposes should be adjusted for superannuitants. “Presumably there was some objection to that recommendation, but perhaps in the light <of the apparent failure to provide relief by increasing the lower superannuation rates, the Prime Minister might be persuaded to look again at the basic principle behind the Archer recommendation,” he said.