SUPERANNUATION FOR EMPLOYEES

Southland Times, Issue 23826, 25 May 1939, Page 5

SUPERANNUATION FOR EMPLOYEES

STAFF OF HARBOUR BOARD MEN SEEK TO WITHDRAW FROM FUND Claiming that because of their social security and life insurance payments they had difficulty in meeting their payments to the board’s staff superannuation scheme, 10 employees wrote to the Bluff Harbour Board last night asking permission to withdraw from the scheme. The letter stated that if their insurance policies were surrendered they would lose heavily and the increased taxation for social security imposed a severe burden. The chairman (Mr W. A. Ott) said that if the 10 men withdrew from the superannuation scheme they would withdraw from the fund £619 13/4 which they had paid in. The board s contributions subsidizing their payments totalling £3lO/0/5 would also be returned. This meant that £929/13/9 would be withdrawn from the fund. If other local body employees were to withdraw from the fund a very big amount might have to be found. The board’s staff had contributed £4373 to the fund and the board had contributed £2098, making a total of £6472. He did not think that the men were suffering any hardship. were only paying an extra tax of 4d in the £1 on their wages and in return for that extra contribution they would eventually get maternity benefits and free medical and hospital benefits. Sir Robert Anderson suggested that the superintendent of the superannuation fund should be asked to visit Bluff and discuss the position with the men. He would probably be able to persuade them to carry on. , „ ~ The Hon. T. F. Doyle, M.L.C., said he agreed with the request of the men. Now that the Social Security Act had been passed the superannuation scheme would be made optional. Before the passing of the Act the scheme had been very good, but the benefits under the Act were so good that the other scheme was no longer necessary. Mr A. H. Aitken said the men had asked the board for permission to withdraw. He believed that the . board should reply stating that it did not consider withdrawal advisable. Mr Doyle said the men were suffering a certain amount of hardship. All those who had asked permission to withdraw were on the lower salary scale. Some of them were carrying fairly heavy life insurances and they were also required to pay 5 per cent, of their salary to the State and 5 per cent, to the superannuation scheme. Under the Social Security Act they would not receive full benefits if their income was above a certain level and consequently they would probably lose through participation in the superannuation scheme. He suggested that they be given the option of withdrawing if they wished. Sir Robert Anderson said that the board could not then make it compulsory for new employees to join the scheme. The chairman said that from inquiries made by the board last year it appeared that the board was unable to allow any man to withdraw from the scheme.

Sir Robert Anderson inoved that the men be informed that the board had no power to allow them to witlidraw from the superannuation fund. Ho added that the superintendent of the fund be asked to visit Bluff.

Mr Doyle said that the terms of the scheme should be amended to allow men to withdraw if their membership was likely to result in their benefits under the Social Security Act being reduced.

Mr G. Wraytt said that Mr Doyle’s proposal would probably upset the social security scheme because if extended it would result in a drain on the State scheme too heavy to be supported. The motion was carried.