NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22629, 22 July 1935, Page 6

NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

TO THE EDITOR Sib, —About 16 months ago I wrote a letter to your paper over the signature " Member," in which I endeavoured to enlighten members of the National Provident Fund as to the condition under which they drew their pension when they attained the age of 60. (1) When once the pension is drawn members forfeit their right to withdraw from the fund, although they understand they can withdraw on giving 12 months' notice. (2) The pension (paid monthly) is liable to stamp duty. The superannuation, old-age, or soldiers' pension is not so liable. Why should this fund be liable? (3) The payments are liable to unemployment tax,' even though it is only the capital that is being returned. (4) The clause which reads that moneys payable out of the fund shall not be deemed to be income or accumulated property within the meaning of the Oldajje Pensions Act, was repealed by the National Expenditure Adjustment Act, 1932. Since I. discovered the repudiation by the Government of its contract with members by the repeal of this particular clause, about which most of the members know nothing, since they were never notified, I have not ceased to protest to the "heads" as opportunity offered. . I have lately received a letter from Mr R. Masters in reply to a letter of mine in which he states: — " The legislative action of which you complain was taken on the definite recommendation of the National Expenditure Commission, and it is not considered that a restoration of the concession to the oidage pensions is warranted at present." The statement that the repeal was made on the definite recommendation of the National Expenditure Commission is not according to fact. The commission's report reads: —"We further recommend that no new contributors should be enrolled on the present basis, etc." If the commissioners had intended, their recommendation to apply to all mem-

bers why did they use the word "new"? The word would have been needless in euch #n event. The Government seems, however, to want to shelter itself by asserting and reasserting that the commission advised repeal, and 60 the law was repealed.. I have pointed out to the Prime Minister that even if the commission did advise repeal, that did not justify the Government in accepting its recommendation, and have asked him if the Government itself did not know right from wrong. . The latter part of the letter from Mr Masters leaves one with the feeling that a State guarantee (this fund being Stateguaranteed), with the present Government, is absolutely worthless. The Government -scan add to or repeal as it thinks fit, and treat the members with contempt. A contractor for the member—and every member has a contract number —is a " scrap of paper " for the Government.

I submit, Sir, that a very important principle is involved here, as the Government is striking a serious blow at the honour of New Zealand, especially as it is "putting it across" those who are least able to resist it.—l am, etc., Wm. York.