The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1932. SUPERANNUATION FUND

Southland Times, Issue 21650, 11 March 1932, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1932. SUPERANNUATION FUND

This morning we publish an informative statement on the Public Service Superannuation .Fund which should serve to correct many misunderstandings and to stop much of the criticism levelled at the Public Servants in connection with their desire to protect their interests. It will be seen that the State has actually gained through the introduction of this Fund, and while establishing it apparently in the interests of Public Servants, actually passed on to the contributors a large portion of pensions previously authorized, which properly should have been borpe by the Consolidated Fund, or, in other words, the taxpayer. Prior to the end of 1908 there were certain pensions of generous proportions to which the State was committed and when the Superannuation Fund avus created these were transferred to it, so that the fund was compelled to bear non-contributing pensions from the outset. When it is seen that the Government Ims dodged the payment of subsidies required to keep the fund actuarily sound, and that these subsidies represent a sum in excess of .61,000,000, it is impossible to carry on with the idea that the Public Servants who contribute to the fund to-day are in any way beholden to the State. Actually, it would appear, the reverse is the case. In recent years the rapid retirement of Public Servants of long service in the interests of economy has relieved the State's wages list, and put an extra burden on the fund. The argument for the Public Servant is that the Superannuation Fund in its original form was sound actuarily, and would have carried on without any calls on the State, using only the contributions taken from the salaries of Public Servants compelled to belong to the fund; but the fund at the outset was loaded with pensions authorized by previous legislation and virtually . non-con-tributing, so that the actuarial scheme was varied, to the advantage of the Consolidated Fund. Dismissals in the interests of economy have further prejudiced the Superannuation Fund to the advantage of the Consolidated Fund, and the Government has not made good its undertaking to keep the Superannuation Fund sound by means of subsidies rendered necessary by the demands made on it by the State to its own advantage. This is the ease presented by the Public Servants, and it is a convincing answer to the declarations that the Government would be justified in making further inroads in Public Servants’ salaries on the ground that they receive benefits through the Superannuation Fund. The National Provident Fund has been cited as a superannuation fund available to the public and receiving a permanent appropriation from the State. What would be said by the contributors to that fund if the Government proposed to cut down the benefits it had contracted to give them? Such a proposal would be called repudiation, and the withdrawals would be so heavy that the National Provident Fund would go out of existence. Public Servants cannot withdraw from the Superannuation Fund in that way; but that restriction on them cannot justify any act of repudiation by the State.