NATIONAL PROVIDENT AND PENSIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 22084, 18 July 1935, Page 12

NATIONAL PROVIDENT AND PENSIONS.

TO THU EDITOR. gi r —My attention has been drawn to a letter signed “ Disfranchised,” complaining of the Government breaking its contract to the members of the National Provident Fund. In Ins letter appears the following statement: “ Coalition sponsored this breach of faith, this shameful penny-saving measure whilst the stalwart champion of the oppressed, the Labour Party, sat on its political haunches in a mental stupor.” I do not know where “Disfranchised” was on April 21, 1932, but ho seems to have been asleep then and since. Tho Labour Party in the House took strong exception to the Government amendment to tho National Provident Act. Speaking on the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill on April 13, 1932 (‘Hansard’ 232, page 51) Mr Jordan, M.P., Labour member for Manakau, stated: “Further, I submit there are absolute breaches of contracts embodied in this Bill. Take the case of the National Provident Fund. One of the conditions attaching to joining of the fund is that incomes received from it should not be regarded as income in deciding what amount should be paid as old age pension. Many persons paid in a few shillings a week in order to get 10s a week when they were old in addition to tho old age pension. That was the condition of their membership. Now that is to be struck out, and what they paid for is considered income to operate against their pension rights. I submit that is a distinct broach of faith and breach of contract.” When the clauses amending tho National Provident Act were taken in committee the Labour Party strongly opposed the amendment, and divided the House on the question. The amendment was carried by 44 to 31, six Independents and two Government members voting with the Labour Party. Mr Richards, M.P., Labour member for Roskill, speaking in the House on December 13, 1933, stated in his remarks that “ the department was obtaining contracts under false pretences.” On_ August 2, 1934, I raised this question in tho House and again on October 16, 1934. _So far we have failed to obtain satisfaction from the Government. I have only known one man who has endeavoured to have this wrong righted by appealing to the members and to tho Government. That breach of contract was only one of many that the Government committed. I resent the cheap sneers by “Disfranchised” at the party to which I belong, but that will not prevent us from endeavouring to obtain justice for the members of the National Provident Fund.—l am, etc., July 18. F. Jones. GOODS TRANSPORT SERVICES. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The points mentioned by “ Interested ” in your issue of July 17 are not in accordance with facts. For instance, he is not correct in saying that there is only one man in the truck, as two men are provided for each truck. The present method of loading the Invercargill and _ Cromwell roadside wagons has been in operation for the last eight years, and is a practice which has been adopted in all large centres. The object is to prevent congestion at the doors of the shed, and it is news to me to learn that it takes one-third of the time to load into the shed as against direct loading into the truck. There is a night goods train running every night to Invercargill, also one to Cromwell approximately sis months in the year, and the roadside wagons for these points require to be ready between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. in order to be despatched the same night. The goods for this traffic are rushed down to tho yard as late as 6 p.m., and jt should be obvious to “Interested” that if loads np to 10 tons for these towns arrive at tho shed between 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m., the congestion at the shed door would be greater than at the trucks, where four men are employed to receive the goods. Mention is made of saving labour. I think it will be seen that the present handling of these goods, which involves four men’s wages, is costly, but it has to be done in order to have the goods despatched the same evening by the night goods train. 1 would appreciate a visit from “ Interested ” to discuss this matter, as I fail to see his point regarding several of his statements. I leave his remarks that the merchants, etc., are only a secondary consideration as far as we are concerned, as unworthy of notice. It is regretted that such sweeping assertions are made. I feel satisfied that the rightthinking business community will agree that our present-day service has vastly improved, and we are out to give every facility. At the same time we expect reciprocity, and in this case this can be given by endeavour being made to have the goods brought to tho yard earlier. —I am, etc., H. L. Gibson, District Traffic Manager, July 18. _______________