Superannuation Funds

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 30, 29 October 1932, Page 13

Superannuation Funds

Sir, —The Coalition Government ha* gone far in the direction of repudiation. The Mortgagors’ Belief Acts, the inclusion of income from “tax-free” bonds to' increase the amount of income tax payable, the 10 per cent, duty on “tax-free” income, and the compulsory, reduction of interest, have all been a serious shock to its supporters. Incompetent farmers and land speculators have benefited at the expense of the mortgagees; genuine investment has been ’stifled, and capital frozen, hard-working farmers and business men have had to rely upon stock agents and the banks for accommodation at high rates of interest, and the credit of the Dominion has suffered seriously. Only the other day -the Premier was reported as having indicated that borrowing on the Home market was quite impracticable now. And yet we are told that the Commonwealth Government has been successful in raising a large sum at 31 per cent. 1 Surely it is time that our legislators should pause and consider before giving their support to further drastic legislation. On several occasions recently Mr. Forbes was reported to have given Ids assurance that no such legislation wouia be introduced this session, and yet v.e now learn that it is the intention of the Government to repudiate in part.at least its obligations in connection with the various superannuation funds! Superannuitants and contributors to the funds have faithfully carried out their part of the contract, and are now to be deprived of a large part of the benefits they were guaranteed, and they are to be forced to submit to this simply because the other parties to the contract have not, in spite of repeated warnings l ,, carried out their bouuden duty to maintain the funis on a sound basis. And it is not at all clear that iu spite of this neglect the position is so bad as to compel the Government to repudiate at all. The Economy Commission has shown that, apart from interfering with the superannuation funds, there is ample room for reduction in public expenditure, and astute-mmdeu men’like the members of the Government and their supporters can hardly pleau. that they themselves, with their knowledge of public affairs, cannot point out additional means of still further reducing expenses and thus affording means of strengthening the superannuation funus without the legislation now proposed. They must unhesitatingly acknowledge the importance of a contented, efficient and adequately remunerated body of public servants; and as an important part of their remuneration in addition to the money wages they receive our public servants" have valued the security—hitherto deemed assured —attaching to their appointments and the State guarantees that their superannuation funds would be safeguarded, and the conditions under which thev joined the funds and contributed would be faithfully carried out to their advantage. Can we not rely upon our Government and their supporters to say emphatically that they are determined to honour to the fullest extent the guarantees and obligations specifically or impliedly embodied in the Superannuation Acts, and to guard against the possibility of a slur upon the fair fame of the Dominion? The proposal to interfere with the allowances of superannuitants that have completed their part of the contract and retired voluntarily or cumpulsonly is particularly reprehensible. They have done their duty, completed the stipulated payments. and arranged their affairs relying upon the state guarantee that their allowance would be faithfully paid. Many ol them are aged or in failing health;’shou.u tliev be compiled to go to expense ami fight for their rights before select committees or hardship tribunals'? Surely they should be left in peace? The suggestion that interference w-ith their allowances will make for equality of sacrifice is absurd. In. an actual case where four superannuitants are now receiving approximately the same amount each as annual allowance, three will be affected very slightlv or not at all, while the fourth will, if the proposed interference is insisted upon, lose at least one-fifth of h,s allowance! On such a basis a man. receiving £3OO per year would be deprived, of £6O of it! —I am. etc.. „„„„ FACILIS EST DESCENSUS. October 24.