PROVIDENT FUND

Wairarapa Times-Age, 29 April 1938, Page 8

PROVIDENT FUND

POSITION OF TRADING BANKS AND OFFICERS APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM STATE SCHEME EVIDENCE LAID BEFORE COMMITTEE By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, This Day. Evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Bank Officials’ Industrial Union of Workers, the New Zealand Bank Officers’ Guild, and the trading banks was presented before the Parliamentary Committee of 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 a statement on behalf of the banks and its officers contributing to superannuation funds. Mr Maurant said 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 staffs of the trading banks ir. the Dominion, numbering some 3100 officers. The proposals of the Government were of considerable concern to bank employees, because all six banking institutions had superannuation schemes. Representations had been made to the banks by the employees, and to avoid a duplication of evidence the banks would place a statement before the committee on the provident and superannuation schemes which had been established in the interests of employees. “We wish to assure the committee that bank officers are favourable to the general principle of the State providing superannuation and health insurance for those who are in need,” Mr Maurant said. “It is considered, however, that as far as superannuation is concerned, bank officers are adequately provided for, and they are therefore, averse to becoming contributors to a scheme which in their case is no needed, and from which they will derive no benefit.”

The statement presented by Mr Evans on behalf of the six trading banks set out in detail particulars of their individual provident and superannuation schemes. It was pointed out in the case of each of the banks in New Zealand that membership of provident and fidelity guarantee funds was compulsory upon the whole male staff.

A statement was also presented on behalf of a number of the staff of the Shell Company of New Zealand, Ltd., who were contributors to the Company’s provident fund, appealing for exemption from that portion, or the proposed contribution under the State scheme. The statement also requested that, should the appeal for exemption be declined, the means test should not be applied to the income they derived from their provident and pension funds and insurances affected through the company’s fund.

At the conclusion of his statement Mr Evans was asked a number of questions.

The Prime Minister (the Rt Hon M. J. Savage): “I suppose bank officers will admit that they have a responsibility to their parents who might get 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 the other services are concerned, we think taxation is a proper basis for it. If it is a question of taxation, then it would have to be considered what the amount of the taxation should be.”