The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1932. THE STATE’S BOND

Southland Times, Issue 21836, 13 October 1932, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1932. THE STATE’S BOND

When the Government deals with the Superannuation Funds an effort may be made to deal with existant pensions, especially those involving annual payments of over £300; but there can be no plea that contracts must be honoured if these or any other pensions for which contributions have been levied, or pensions granted in accordance with conditions of engagement are varied either by increase or decrease. The heavy commitments on the State in connection with superannuation are largely the result of the State’s failure in the past to meet its obligations and its action in loading the Superannuation Funds with additional burdens as a result of retrenchments. Where State employees have contributed, under compulsion, to a fund under conditions entitling them to definite expectations those expectations cannot be varied without a breach of contract, without the State breaking a solemn pledge given to its servants. It does not matter whether a man has been assured of a retiring allowance of £3OO or £3000; he is justified in asking that the State shall honour its bond, and the State cannot plead that it can treat the £3OOO man differently from the man to whom it promised £3OO. It may be argued that a retiring allowance of £3OO now is worth more than one of a similar amount given ten years ago but this cannot be put forward by the State unless it is prepared to agree that the amount of the allowance will be increased in the event of prices rising. Pensions granted by the State, granted to employees under the conditions of their engagement, must be honoured as scrupulously, for again they involve the State’s pledged word. If the conditions governing the contributions to the Superannuation Funds are varied, these variations can be made to apply to new contributors only. Further it is the plain duty of the State to guarantee the fund against insolvency and to make those guarantees practical safeguards. Much has been said about the responsibilities of governments and of the prestige of Parliament, but what government can do wrong against an alert House ready to insist that above party, above everything the government of the day. shall do no wrong? The responsibility is on the members of the House. If they shelter behind party politics, they must be reminded that parties, so far as the legislature is concerned, are composed of members of Parliament and they must accept full responsibility for any mistakes caused by the party system. No prestige can withstand the effects of a deliberate dishonouring of the State’s pledge. If a party breaks its pledges, its prestige suffers; if Parliament acts in similar fashion it cannot escape the stigma of dishonour. And Parliament has in its keeping the good name of the State. Necessity may demand some variation in the

conditions governing the Superannuation Funds; but necessity does not excuse dishonour. And so variations must not require that the State shall violate undertakings it has given to employees it has compelled to contribute to these funds under the guarantee that promises shall be fulfilled. When there is talk about the prestige of Parliament, let the country remember that the prestige of the State is even more important.