SUPERANNUATION

Grey River Argus, 30 April 1938, Page 7

SUPERANNUATION

PLEAS FOR EXEMPTION From Contributing to the Fund [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 29. A request for exemption from contribution to, and the benefits of, the State Superannuation Scheme was made to the Parliamentary Committee to-dfty in a statement presented on behalf of permanent employees ol stock and station companies in Wellington, Marlborough. Taranaki, Nelson, Otago, Southland and Auckland districts. “It will press very heavily on some of our staff, if, in addition to their contributions, they have to pay a further five per cent., as there isjio possible chance of their obtaining anything out of the suggested national superannuation scheme,” said Mr W. O. Gibb, when appearing before the committee this afternoon on behalf of the Executive Council ol the Insurance Institute of New Zealand (Incorporated). Mr Gibb added that officers of the Institute would apparently be entitled to free medical attention under the health portion of the scheme, but, taking the average clerk's salary at £350, it would mean that he would contribute £l7 10s per annum, and it was certain that the yearly average per family for medical attendance was much less than that. Already .at least 90 per cent, of the 2450 salaried officers comprising the Institute enjoyed the superannuation, the majority of the schemes being contributory. Mr Gibb gave examples of the working of superannuation schemes now in operation. WELLINGTON, April 29.

Evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Bank Officials’ Industrial Union of Workers, the New Zealand Bank Officers’ Guild, and the trading lanks., was presented before the Parliamentary Committee Superannuation National Health. Mr H. P. Maurant appeared for the Bank Officers Guild. Mr H. E. Evans, counsel for the Associated Bank, presented a statement on behalf of the banks and officers, contributing to superannuation funds. Mr Maurant said he wished to make submissions ■on behalf of the New Zealand Bank Officers* Industrial Union of Workers, and the New Zealand Bank Officers’ Guild, the two bodies which represented practically the whole of the staff of trading banks in the Dominion, numbering some 3100 officers. The proposals of the Government were of considerable concern to bank employees, because all six banking institutions had superannuation schemes. Representations had ben made to the banks by ( the employees, and to avoid duplication of evidence, the Banks would place a statement before the committee on the provident and superannuation schen.es which had been established in the interests of the employees “We wish to assure the committee that bank officers are favourable to general principle of the State providing superannuation and health insurance for those who are in need, it is considered however, that as far as superannuation is concerned, bank officers are adequately provided for and they are therefore adverse to becoming contributors to a schenTe which in their case, is not needed, and from which they will derive no benefit.” A statement presented by Mr Evans, on behalf of the six trading banks, set out in detail particulars of their individual provident and superannuation schemes. It was pointed out that in the case of each of the banks in New Zealand; membership of the Provident and fidelity guarantee funds was compulsory upon the whole ma.e staff. A statement, was also presented on behalf of a number of the staff of the Shell Company of New Zealand, Ltd., who were contributors to the Company’s provident fund, appealing for exemption from a portion of the proposed contribution under the State scheme statement. They also request ed that should the appeal for exemption be declined, and a means test should not be applied to the income they derived from their provident and pension funds and insurances effected through the company’s fund.

MR SAVAGE’S COMMENT. At the conclusion of his. statement, Mr Evans was asked a number of questions. Mr Savage: I suppose the bank officers will not admit that they have a responsibility to their parents, who, might get benefits under the Government scheme? I don’t suggest that the method of taxation proposed is the last word. It Is a matter of hammering out the best method. We claim the right to impose taxation in any form on all sections of the communiy, for a common purpose.. Wej want to make it as equitable as we ( can. I don’t suggest for a moment I that one shilling in the pound is the| most equitable form of taxation, but it is the one that is handiest for the time being. You don't suggest that I public servants and everybody else who has a scheme should be exempt? If that were so the Government would be unable to nelp anybody. Do you think it would be right to accept that position? Mr Evans: So far as the other services are concerned, we think that taxation is the proper basis for it. If it is a question of taxation, then it would have to be considered what amount of taxation there should be. Mr Savage said he did not think there was any private institution on earth that could provide the benefits that were provided, for by the Government. He claimed that bank officers would get at least two-thirds of the benefits provided for in the Government’s scheme. Mr Evans: That is a matter for analysis. , , Mr Nash: That is the only claim that the bank officials make—that they should be exempt so far as superannuation is concerned? Mr Evans: Speaking generally, that is so. In reply to a question by one ot the witnesses, Mr Nash said that, under the proposals put forward by Mr Savage, there was no means test for health benefits. There was no suggestion of a limit. The committee was

discussing the matter with doctors. When the British Medical Association was before the committee, witnesses had been asked if they would co-op-erate, if a limit of £3OO, with £5O for each dependent, were imposed. That was the only suggestion of a limit that had been made. LATER. Mr S. G. Holland quoted a report of a statement made by Mr Savage, in which he said that those who already were provided for would not be compelled to come into the national scheme. Mr, Savage: I say that now! Mr Mourant said he had understood those provided for would not have to contribute. Mr Savage: Would you still object if the money was to come out of the Consolidated Fund? | Mr Mourant: On principle, yes. Mr Savage: Then thirty shillings is i too much for an old age pensioner? Mr Holland went on to suggest that bank officers might be deprived of all benefits through an income bar, membership of a friendly society, and other personal provisions. Mr Savage said that it had never been suggested that membership of a friendly society would be a bar. “Mr Holland is deliberately setting out to draw a red herring across the path,” Mr Savage added. “He is here to stop this scheme becoming law — if he can.”

Mr Holland said that he was entitled to ask questions. He added: "Ever since the inquiry opened, I have been interrupted by the Prime Minister. We have called for witnsesses, and have only had one of them.” He went on to refer to a request he had made on the previous day, when he was called to order by the chairman, who said that the request had been made in camera, and thus it could not be referred to in public.