I. —15.

their excess contributions were held as an offset against future contributions —that is to say, they had a sum of money, perhaps £10, £15, or £20, in the Superannuation Fund in excess of what they should have paid in, and that money was used for future contributions. When the second cut was imposed the same opportunity was given to continue paying in at the higher rate. A number of the members still continued to pay on the higher rate, but a number did not wish to do so. They were in the same position as they were when the first cut was imposed, and they had a considerable sum of money in the Superannuation Fund more than they should have had, and which, if the previous principle had been followed, would have been used for future contributions. The Government, however, refused to give the men the advantage of having that money set off against future contributions, and it is impounded in the Superannuation Fund. It is to be given back to the members on their retirement without interest. My organization contends, that if the Government can keep £10, £15, or £20 in the Superannuation Fund for ten, twenty, or thirty years, when that money is returned the men should get it back with accrued interest, and if the Government does not propose to return the money with interest it should be refunded now. The Chairman : Now we will take questions. Mr. Savage : On the first page of your statement you say that the National Expenditure Commission investigated the position of the Superannuation Funds without having heard evidence from the organizations concerned. Did your organization ever receive any assurance from a previous Minister of Railways that you would have an opportunity to give evidence before a Commission which was then talked about ? lam referring to the time during the Ward Administration —the United party ? Mr. Stephenson : I cannot say that we received any official information to the effect that we would be heard on the matter, but when the Commission was set up Sir Joseph Ward stated that the various organizations would be given an opportunity of giving evidence. Mr. Savage : On page 14, where you deal with the proposal to remove the £300 limit, you state that in 1929 no less than £18,000 was being paid in excess of £300. It has been suggested to me that the amount is somewhere between £25,000 and £27,000. Would you say that that figure was incorrect; that it was too high ? Mr. Stephenson : No. Mr. Savage : There is at least £25,000 a year being paid in excess of the £300 in retiring-allowances at the present time ? Mr. Stephenson : That is quite correct. I can give you the figures for the various years from 1929 onwards : 1929, £18,794 13s. in excess of £300; 1930, an additional £1,104 9s. in excess of £300 ; 1931, an additional £2,123 16s. in excess of £300 ; 1932, an additional £6,661 in excess of £300, making a total of £28,684, to put the position quite clear, however, I would point out that I have not made any deductions for members who may have died and gone off the Fund between 1929 and 1932. Had no members gone off the Fund during that period the total would be £28,684. Mr. Savage: Making due allowance for those who have gone off the Fund, there would be well over £25,000 being paid in excess of £300 ? Mr. Stephenson : Yes, exactly so. Mr. McCombs : Have you any figures to show what might be the effect now or in the future if the £300 limit is lifted ? What would be the burden on the Fund ? Mr. Stephenson : I think the position would carry on probably just as it is. Mr. McCombs : You mean accumulating each year up to the forty ? Mr. Stephenson : Yes, it would accumulate, but I do not know that it would accumulate a greatdeal more during the next few years because the thirty-five-year-service men have gone off. Mr. Wilkinson : I would like to ask your opinion in regard to the continuation of those payments in excess of £300. Does the Railway service favour the continuation of those payments in excess of £300? Mr. Stephenson : The organization is definitely in favour of that part of the Bill providing for a maximum of £300 being retained. Mr. Wilkinson : That is not quite an answer to my question. The point I want to make is this : is the Railway service as a whole satisfied with the present payments in excess of £300 ? Mr. Stephenson : No, I do not say they are. The position at the present time is that those members who joined the service after 1908 knew that they were joining the Fund on the condition that they would be unable to draw more than £300 a year out of the Superannuation Fund. It is not a breach of contract to hold the £300 limit, and if that limit is withdrawn it is giving an advantage to those men who joined after 1908 and who realized at the time they joined the Fund that they would be unable to draw more than £300. Mr. Wilkinson : That is not quite what I want. The Railway service is not very sympathetic towards the payments being made in excess of £300, is it ? The Chairman : You want to get an answer similar to the question asked yesterday. Mr. Wilkinson : Yes, I got a different answer yesterday. Mr. Stephenson : The general opinion is that £300 a year is sufficient for any man to retire on. The Chairman : You do not favour the big amounts ? Mr. Stephenson: No. Mr. McCombs : You do not suggest that there should be any repudiation of contract to those who are now receiving over £300 ? Mr. Stephenson : No, I could not answer for that. Mr. Wilkinson : The question I asked is whether the Railway service is favourably disposed to the payments that are now being made over £300. I have the answer that the Railway service is not favourably disposed to those payments.

55