Patea & Waverley Press MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1931. PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

Patea Mail, Volume LII, 9 March 1931, Page 2

Patea & Waverley Press MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1931. PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

At a time like the present, when economy Is so badly needed in connection with tlie country’s expenditure, it would be well it Parliament were to review the position of the Public Service superannuation fund with a view to ascertaining whether (a) the animal contribution ot the Civil Servants should be increased, or (b) the contributions from the Consolidated Fund be decreased, together with the annual value of the allowances paid. Few people, we believe, art 1 aware of the drain that the Public Service uiperannuation fund has been upon, the public purse of recent years. According to the latest copy of the New Zealand Year Book, the contributions to this fund from the consolidated revenue since 1913 have been as follows:—Year ending 31/12/14, £48,000; 19.16, £48,000; 1918, £48,000; 1920, £106,000; 1923, £107,500; 1924, £136,000; 1925, £136,000; 1926, £99,269; 1927, £99,444; 1928, £99,810; 1929, £100,007; 1930. £200,844. The fund, according to the same authority, is administered by a board of 11 members, comprising a Minister of the Crown, four permanent heads of Departments, and six members elected by contributors—two of those in the Post and Telegraph Department, one by those in the police force, and three by those in other Departments. Fleeted members hold office for three years, with the right of offering themselves for re-election. The fund consists of contributions from Civil Servants, interest on investments, Covernmcnt subsidy, fines imposed on public servants, and proceeds of sales of unclaimed property. _ The contributions vary with the age on joining the fund. For ages under 30 they arc 5 per cent, of the salary, for 30 and under 35, 7 per cent.; 40 and under 45. S per cent; 45 and under 50, 9 per cent.: 50 and over, 10 per cent. The principal benefits are: (1) A pension for every year of service equal to one-six-tieth of the average annual salary for the last three years, payable after 40 years’ service or at the age of 65 or on retirement owing to ill-health. The maximum pension is not lo exceed twothirds of the salary, nor in the case of entrants after December 24, 1909, £3OO per annum; (2) a pension of £3l per annum to the widow of a contributor or pensioner during widowhood and £26 per annum for each child under the age of 14. Prior to April. 1925, widows’ and children’s pensions were £lB and £l3 respectively. An examination of the fund is made once in every three years by an actuary appointed by the Governor General. The actuary’s report must show the state of the fund, and the probable annual sums required to provide the retiring and other allowances falling due -within the ensuing three years, without trenching upon the moneys paid by existing contributors to be invested for the purpose of providing their allowances when they retire. The report for the three years ending March 31. 1927. estimated that apart from making provision for the shortages of past years, which on March 31, 1927,

amounted to £804,000, the subsidy for eacli of the three years ending'March 31, 1928 to 1930, should i>e increased to £231,000. As a matter of fact, the Government subsidy for the year ■ ending March 31 last was £200,844, which included an additional £IOO,OOO in view of the position disclosed by the 1927 valuation. What the taxpayer, already overburdened, would like to know is what his future liability for the purpose of giving big pensions to Civil -Servants who, like the head of the Railway Department, have been drawing huge salaries, is going to be. If the amount paid by the taxpayer for this purpose has increased from £48,000 per annum in 1914 to £200,844 in 1930, what guarantee is there that it will not be £300,000 in a few years’ time. It would appear that either the contributors have been paying too little or the pensions have been far too liberal in view of the salaries received. Certain it is that this country, with its very limited population, cannot afford so heavy a drain on its resources as it is now compelled to face. The subsidy to this fund, which 20 years ago was only £22,500 per annum, and has now reached £200,844 per annum, is one of the leaks which the Government should stop before imposing additional taxation.