I. —15.

Commission's Report hazy. —A further inconsistency of the report is that, while recommending a pound-for-pound subsidy, it states (paragraph 1449) that the subsidy will not be required for all time. If that is so, why not recalculate the actuarial situation to find out what is the rate of subsidy which would be required " for all time " ? Surely this is not beyond the capacity of the Actuary who was able to supply figures upon which the present statement of actuarial liability was based. And why has the Commission, instead of obtaining such a figure, asked the present heavily overloaded Government and the present heavily underpaid staff to bear an unduly heavy load for relief of future generations " for all time " ? Commission recommends that another Contract be broken. —In paragraph 1450 the Commission recommends an increase, by 2 per cent, of remuneration, in respect to their future service, in the contribution of contributors to the Railways Fund who joined prior to the Ist January, 1908, at ages under fifty years. Does this mean that an employee who was forty-nine years of age on Ist January, 1908, is now to have his percentage of contributions increased by 2 per cent. ? If so, who is he, because a forty-nine-year-old man in 1908 is seventy-three years of age now ? As the present requirements of the Act demand that employees retire at not later than sixty-five years of age, it is obvious that there is no such person. By the same process of elimination the age stated by the Commission should be " under forty-one." Of course, the Commission may mean that those over fifty years of age at the present are not to suffer this imposition. If so, their recommendation is made very loosely ; if not, it is an absurdity. The Commission recommends that, as these men who joined prior to 1908 paid 2 per cent, less than those who joined after Ist January of that year, the former should now be called upon for increased contributions. The proper view to take of this matter is that such was the agreement entered into, and such is the agreement which should be carried through. Any other action taken now which would impose further charges upon original contributors is a breach of contract, and undermines the whole principle of the sanctity of contracts. The fact that different rates are paid by employees who joined at different times does not constitute an anomaly. It is merely an indication of changes made during the existence of the Fund in regard to the rates to be charged those joining the Fund. For instance, the Commission makes no suggestion that it is anomalous that in 1902 surfacemen were given 7s. per day upon joining the Service, while in 1920 they were given 15s. a day upon joining the Service. Had such a fact been considered by the Commission it would not have concluded that 3 per cent, for the 7s. man as against 5 per cent, from the 15s. man constituted a real anomaly. It would have known that 5 per cent, could not have been paid in 1902, and had such a percentage been asked for the Railways Superannuation Fund would not have come into existence. What the Commission proposes now is to do an injustice, by a gross breach of contract, to the original contributor now in the Service in an endeavour to equalize one factor, knowing all the time that there are many other factors which have not been taken into account and over which it has no control. Commission's Tender Care for Large-salaried Employees. —The same paragraph refers to the arbitrary annuity limitation of £300 per annum, on retirement, of all who joined after the 24th November, 1909. Again it is necessary to state that this arrangement was by agreement, for no one was compelled to join any of the Services, and all were given an opportunity to know the conditions applying to them in regard to the State Superannuation Fund. Surely the present is not the time to introduce a liberalizing policy which would benefit only those obtaining a salary which would average as high as £450 per annum during the last ten years of their service. With such a high average salary for so long a period before retirement, surely £300 per annum, the amount agreed upon, should meet requirements for their period of retirement. It is unreasonable to suggest increasing the liability of the Fund for the benefit of those without any legal claim to increased benefits, as it is equally unjust to impose further superannuation charges upon those already in the Fund for whom no additional benefits are suggested. This society stands, first and last, for the preservation of the sanctity of contracts entered into. Faulty Worh of Commission. —Paragraph 1451 should have stated how soon a reduction in the State subsidy below £1 for £1 would be possible. As it is not stated, the reasonable assumption is that it was not worked out —another clear indication of the faulty work put into the report. In paragraph 1452 the Commission again comes back to what it calls " a real liability of the State to the Fund." It is therefore again necessary to reiterate that the State has a liability to its employees, not to the funds. The funds merely represent a method of financing the liability of the State towards the employees, and no objection can possibly be raised to the way in which the State arranges its finances so long as it does not default in its definite liabilities to its employees and other creditors. Commission's Unsound Discrimination between Funds.—ln paragraph 1453 the Commission once more mentions £700,000 as the compensation which should have been paid from the Consolidated Fund to the Superannuation Funds in respect of officers who have drawn superannuation from the Public Service Fund. No mention is made of members of the Railway service similarly situated, although some reference was to have been expected had the Commission known this side of their subject. In paragraph 1454, in dealing with trading departments, the Commission again omits the Railways, although the Railways are the largest Government trading Department of all. If the Railway Department was included it would be interesting to know what amount " compounded at 4 per cent, interest, " (to use the Commission's phrase) would have been required from the Railways (as a trading Department). The Commission recommends that £184,000 or its equivalent over a period of years should be paid to the funds on account of Public Trust, Government Life, and State Fire Offices. On the

36