MORE CRITICISM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 100, 30 April 1938, Page 10

MORE CRITICISM

SUPERANNUATION PLAN

BANK EMPLOYEES’ VIEWS

EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE COMMITTEE

[ Per Press Association.]

WELLINGTON, April 29. Evidence on behalf of the New Union of Workers, New Zealand Bank Officers’ Guild, and the trading banks was presentea before the Parliamentary Committee on Superannuation and National Health. Mr H. P. Maurant appeared for the Bank Officers’ Guild, while Mr H. E. Evans, counsel for the Associated Banks, presented the statement on behalf of the banks and officers contributing to the superannuation funds. Mr Maurant said that he wished to make submissions on behalf of the New Zealand Bank Officials Industrial Union of Workers and the New Zealand Bank Officers’ Guild, two bodies which represented practically the whole of the staff of the trading banks in the Dominion, numbering some 3100 officers. The proposals of the Government were of considerable concern to the bank employees, because all six banking institutions had superannuation schemes. Representations had been made to the banks by the employees, and to avoid duplication of evidence the banks would place the statement before the committee on the provident and superannuation schemes which had been established in the interest of employees. “We wish to assure the committee that the bank officers are favourable to the general principle of the State providing superannuation and health insurance for those who are in need. It is considered, however, that, as far as superannuation is concerned, the bank officers are adequately provided for, and they are therefore adverse to becoming contributors to a scheme which, in their case, is not needed and from which they will derive no benefit. The statement presented by Evans on behalf of six trading banks set out in detail particulars of their individual provident and superannuation schemes. It was pointed out that in the case of each of the banks in New Zealand membership of the provident and fidelity guarantee funds was compulsory upon the whole male staff. A statement was also presented on behalf of a number of members of the Shell Company of New Zealand, Limited, who were contributors to the company's provident fund, appealing for exemption from the portion of the proposed contribution under the State scheme. The statement also requested, should the appeal for exemption be declined, that the means test should not be applied to the income they derived from their provident and pensions funds and insurances effected through the company’s fund.

Mr Savage’s Questions At the conclusion of his statement, Mr Evans was asked a number of questions. Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage: “I suppose the bank officers will admit that they have a responsibility to their parents who might be getting benefits under the Government scheme? I don’t suggest that the method of taxation proposed is the last word. It is a matter of hammering out the best method. We claim the right to impose taxation in any form on all sections of the community for a common purpose. We want to make it as equitable as we can. I don’t suggest for a moment that a shilling in the pound is the most equitable form of taxation, but it is the one that is handiest for the time being. You don’t suggest that public servants and everybody else who has a scheme should be exempt. If that were so, the Government would be unable to help anybody. Do you think it would be right to accept that position?”

Mr Evans: “So far as other services are concerned, we think taxation is a proper for it. If it is a question of taxation then it would have to be considered what amount of taxation it should be." Government Benefits. Mr. Savage said that he did not think that there was any private institution on earth that could provide the benefits that were provided for by the Government. He claimed that the bank officers would get at least two-thirds of the benefits provided for in the Government's scheme. Mr. Evans: That >s a matter for analysis. Hon. W. Nash: That is the only claim that the bank officials make—that they should be exempt so far as superannuation is concerned. Mr. Evans: Speaking generally that is so. In reply to a question by one of the witnesses, Mr. Nash said that under the proposals put forward by Mr. Savage there was no means test for health benefits. There was no suggestion of a limit. The committee was discussing the matter with doctors. When the British Medical Association was before the committee witnesses had been asked if they would co-operate with the Government if a limit of £3OO with £5O for each dependent were imposed. That I was the only suggestion of a limit 1 that had been made. Mr. S. G. Holland quoted the report of a statement made by Mr. Savage in which he asserted that those already provided for would not be compelled to come into the national ’ ■•cheme. I Mr. Savage: I say that now. ' Mr. Mourant said that he had un- [ derstood that those provided for would not have to contribute. Mr. Savage: Would you still object if money was Io come out of the Consolidated Fund? Mr. Mourant: On principle, yes. Mr. Savage: Then thirty shillings is too much for old age pensions.

Mr. Holland went on to suggest that the bank officers might be deprived of all benefits through the income bar, membership of a friendly society, and other personal provisions. Mr. Savage said that it had never been suggested that membership of a friendly society would be a bar.

“Mr. Holland is deliberately setting out to draw a red herring across the path," Mr. Savage added. “He is here to stop this scheme becoming law, if he can." Mr. Holland said that he was entitled to ask questions, and added: “Ever since the inquiry opened I have

been interrupted by the Prime Minister. We have called for witnesses and have only had one of them." Mr. Holland went on to refer to the request he had made on the previous day, but he was called to order by the chairman, who said that the request had been made in camera and could not be referred to in public. Stock and Station Employees. A request for exemption from contribution to and the benefits of the State scheme was made to the Parliamentary Committee in a satement presented on behalf of the permanent employees of the stock and station companies in Wellington, Marlborough, Taranaki, Nelson, Otago. Southland and Auckland districts.

“It will press very heavily on some of our staff if, in addition to their contributions, they have to pay a further 5 per cent., as there is no possible chance of their obtaining anything out of the suggested national superannuation scheme," said Mr VV. O. Gibb, when appearing before the committee this afternoon on behalf of the executive council of the Insurance Institute of New Zealand (Incorporated). Mr Gibb added that the officers of the institute would apparently be entitled to free medical attention under the health portion of the scheme, but taking the average clerk's salary at £350, it would mean he would contribute £l7 10s per annum, and it was certain that the yearly average per family for medical attendance was much less than that. Already at least 90 per cent, of the 2450 salaried officers comprising the institute enjoyed the benefits of superannuation, the majority of the schemes being contributory. Mr Gibb gave examples of the working of superannuation schemes now in operation.