RETIRING ALLOWANCES

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2204, 17 July 1914, Page 8

RETIRING ALLOWANCES

FOR MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES THE PRINCIPLE AFFIRMED ■ The_ subject of superannuation for municipal employees, postponed from Wednesday was one of tho first questions to occupy the of tlio Municipal Conference yesterday morning. Tho discussion was given a basis in tho report of the conference Executive Committee, which recommended: "(1) .That the conference seek an amendment of tlie National Provident Act in the direction of making a national sys'tcm of superannuation for the employees of local authorities, under which it shall be optional : for local authorities, to join. "(2) That it be a further recommendation to tho conference that it submit the matter of drawing up a schemo on tho above lines to the persons to be nominated by the conference, and that the scheme, when so prepared, bo submitted to the ' conference for ultimate submission to the Government." Harbour Board's Example.. Tlie president (Mr. J. P; Luke) moved the adoption of the remits which lie thought was a forward step in the rislit direction. In connection with the Wellington Harbour. Board, that body had a superannuation scheme that had been running for a few years, apparently with success. He thought that . employees of a municipality had just as much right" to superannuation as did tho employees of the Government. He had issued tho basis of a scheme which would perhaps givo a lead to the conference. _ He, might deserve tho censure of his council for having brought the report down to the conference, but he was) thero in a dual capacity, and he was of opinion that it would be just as effective to discuss the matter on broad lines instead of giving it a purely local application. Ho beaged to move tho adoption of tlie report. Mr. H. Baldwin (Hutt) seconded the motion.Mr. Fletcher Opposes. Mr. Robert _ Fletcher (Wellington) 6aid that he wished initially to disabuse the mind of the conference on one point. That was the point that the report of the Mayor- to the City Council, which liad been presented to the conference had not yet been discovered by the City-Council and he did not wish .tlio conference to understand that the council had approved of the report. He objected to its terms which were calculated to upset the Local Bodies' Superannuation Act, which was quite sufficient. for any local body wishing to adopt a superannuation scheme. He thought that tho presence of the word "optional" was a mistake'; they might as well leave things as they were, "as to _ include such a provision. He also objected to Clause 2 of tlio Executive Committee's report, which proposed to submit the drawing up of a scheme on the lines indicated to two persons to be nominated by the conference. The President: Persons outside the conference? Mr. Fletcher said that was what -he objected to—it should be drawn up by members of tho conference. In conclusion, Mr. Fletcher said that in his opinion the Auckland remit on the.question was tho most selfish that had ever emanated from that usually generous city. If they waited until everyone came, in, they would never do anything at all. Mt. Michaels (Auckland) defended tho Auckland remit, as it really was the only feasible way to bring about a satisfactory working of the scheme to get everyone in. .. ? .. Mr. J. W. M'Ewah (Petcne) suggested that the word "optional" be "mandatory." National Provident Fund. Mr. F. T. Bellringer (New Plymouth) moyed a modification of tho report, which was seconded by_ the Hon. J. Barr (Sumner),, who said lie would go further, and with the consent of the proposer move that the words after ' "local authorities" be struck out, and the words, "under wliich it shall be optional for local authorities to join until' 1 they are quite sure whether it would be, wise to make, the scheme mandatory." With the limitation of age clause struck out, ho thought that the National Provident Fund would be the best schemo for local authorities as a whole,-for they knew very well therej were small local bodies utterly unable to subsidiso a superannuation fund: ; Ho did not agree that the scheme should be mandatory. If that were done,. it would it for years, but if it were made elastic there would be a reasonable prospect. of, something being done. He strongly favoured the adoption of the National Provident Fund, _ subject to amondment in the manner indicated to6uit the requirements of local bodies. Mr. B. R. Gardener (Levin) believed in .making the scheme compulsory, and agreed with Auckland that tho only effective way would be to have_ one scheme, embracing the whole of the' Dominion. Miss Melville (Auckland) -supported the Auckland remit strongly, and thought it was tlie only way to put tlie principle 'of superannuation into, practice. ■ Mr.. Card (Fcatherston) suggested that the matter as to whether . the scheme should be mandatory or optional should go to the vote —they should affirm the principle, and thtai allow the matter to be considered by' every local body in the country. On • being put," the amendment was carried without dissent. " Mr. M'Gratli (Napier) then moved as a further amendment tlie. insertion of the words in clause 2, after tho words "when so prepared": "That they he forwarded to the various local bodies for 'consideration, and a special couferenco convened for January or February, 1915." The amendment was carried on tho voices.