PENSIONS AND PROVIDENT FUND.

Evening Star, Issue 22084, 18 July 1935, Page 6

PENSIONS AND PROVIDENT FUND.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I would like to endorse the protest which “ Disfranchised ” has made in regard to the repudiation of the contract which the Government made with the members of the National Provident Fund. It has gone beyond a political question and has become a national one. Can the Government make a contract with a certain section of the community and, after obtaining their money, repudiate the contract, and (as it did in my case) refuse to refund the money and coolly tell the member the contract m the most important benefit clause in the whole issue is repealed?

This particular clause simply amounts to an insurance against destitution in old age, and the National Provident Fund member thought that if the worst came to the worst he was making that provision, but he now finds he has been fooled by the Government. A despicable feature of the business is that thousands of the members are totally unaware that they are being hoodwinked by the Government, paying in in blissful ignorance that the Government has sold them a pup,, a mangy one at that, Government guaranteed. I might say I have lately received a letter from -the Hon. R. Masters, Minister in charge, informing me that the Government does not intend to replace the clause in the meantime. Evidently the repudiation does not trouble it.

As regards the reference to the Labour Party, I would suggest to “ Disfranchised ” to look up ‘ Hansard ’ in the Public Library, April 21, 1932, page 264, where he can see how the voting went: 44 for repeal, all Government men; 31 against repeal, all» Labour men and some independents. Mr Jordan, M.P. (May 5, volume 232, top of page 582), in discussing the Finance Bill, said: “I refer now to clause 52, which deals with the National Provident Fund. When persons joined the fund they were assured that any benefits received would not count as income against their receiving the old age pension, but by recent legislation that provision has been repealed, and that repeal we consider a distinct breach of contract.” That speaks for itself, —I am, etc., William York. July 17.