A NEW PRINCIPLE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 77, 1 April 1931, Page 13

A NEW PRINCIPLE

THE CIVIL SERVICE

COMPULSORY RETIREMENTS

The clause in the Finance Bill making special provision in respect of retiring', allowances out oi" the Superannuation Funds to persons in the Civil Service who may lie eompulsorily rotirod was subjected .to some discussion in the House of Representatives this morning. The Prime Minister promised to refer to the committee which is investigating the- superannuation funds certain points which were raised. The Leader of the Opposition (the Bight Hon. J. G. Coates) said that there had been some complaints concerning the clause, and ho would like the Prime Minister to give an. explanation of its effect. Some of the Civil servants wore anxious that, if .. they were eompulsorily retired, they would receive what they were entitled to; they had claims to consideration. . Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Wairnarino): "They are going to get less." Mr. Coates said that the question of a man who was .eompulsorily retired was a problem for consideration. ..• MINISTER EXPLAINS. Tho Minister of Railways (the Hon. W. A. Veiteh) said that the principle contained in the clause was ail entirely new one, and referred to a man who rotired after. 30 years' service. At present there was provision for a man who retired after 35 years' service or over. Tho new provision allowed the man who was eompulsorily rotired at 30 years to draw his contributions to the Superannuation Fund in a lump sum or to draw a pension calculated by an actuary on the interest on his contributions, and ' tho Government quota ho was entitled to. Tho calculation would bo based on the fact that his pensioji would have ten years longer to run, and that, if ha had been retained in tho Service, he would have paid into tho fund for another ten years. Mr. D. Jones (Beform, Mid-Canter-bury) : "Is the retirement optional ?" Mr. Veiteh: "No; this refers only to compulsory retirements." ■ Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) submitted that it was only fair that those who were eompulsorily retired should be put on the same basis as those who were retired medically unfit. BOTH CUT AND RETRENCHMENT. .They had been told, said Mr. J. M'Combs (Labour, Lyttelton) that the alternative to wage reduction was retrenchment. It was now abundantly plain that the Civil servants had to face both. He asked for some provision to be made to safeguard those who were going to be eompulsorily retired. The Prime Minister explained that the clause had been framed at the request of those who were being eompulsorily retired. ■ Similar provision had been made in respect of officers of the Defence Force who were eompulsorily retired, and also in the Public Service Expenditure Act of 1922. , Mr. Forbes pointed out ■■ that there were limits to what the fund • could stand, and that at present the fund was carrying a bigger load than was ever anticipated. Ho thought it was reasonable to mako some special allowance for those who were going out. Replying to a suggestion by Mr. Jones, Mr. Forbes said it would put too great a strain on the fund to provide similarly for those who wished to retire before completing their time. In reply to further questions, Mr. Forbes said he realised that a measure of hardship was being inflicted on those conipulsoriiy rotired. A committeo was at present investigating the whole position of tho superannuation, funds,. a,nd he would ask tho committee to look into the points that had been raised. BREAKING OP AGREEMENTS. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) said that ho did. not like the clause at all. What was the object of retiring officers? A man might be retired on superannuation at 45 years of age. ■ • . . The Prime Minister said that there might not bo enough work for them.; Mi-. .Savage said that it ..meant, the breaking of an agreement.between the man and the State. •.. ...... Mr. Veiteh: "This is an improvement on the agreement." Mr. Savage said that he did not think a man would want to retire at, say, 45, on a mere pittance; It seemed that they were not dealing adequately with superaimuitants. Asked by Mr. M'Combs to justify an interjection that the clause would improve the present provision, Mr. Veiteh said that a Civil servant was not entitled to claim a pension -until ho was 60, years of age, or had had 40 years' service. An officer witn between 35 and 40 years' service, however, might apply to the Minister to be placed on the Superannuation-Fund, and if the Minister was.convinced that he was justified in doing so, he could approve of the officer's retirement, notwithstanding that he was' not yet entitled to claim retirement. All those provisions would continue unaltered. The present clause provided for officers with between 30 and 35 years' service. At present, if they were re- j tired eompulsorily or went out voluntarily, they were only entitled to claim a refund of their contributions into the fund, without interest. ■ The. Bill provided that they would be entitled to a pension based on a refund of their contributions, plus interest on Iheir contributions, plus their quota of the Government's contribution to tho fund. Tho clause was agreed to without division. _________ m _^ mm .