Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 77

Ministerial Policy

Ministerial Policy.

Ministerial constructive policy may be hard, nay, almost impossible to discover, but one need not search far to find ample evidence of Ministerial cowardice in respect of responsibilities. To put off to another time and for a future Executive the burthen of meeting charges imposed to-day seems to be the height of Mr. Seddon's ambition. "Let me take," says Mr. Seddon, "the kudos of schemes that are undoubtedly popular, that involve large financial liabilities, but let a later generation pay the cost; let a future Minister have the opprobrium of meeting responsibilities we are now imposing." It is so easy to pile up debt as long as anyone will lend, but it is another thing to be statesmanlike, and provide a sinking fund each year, which will accumulate, and at some later day provide a fund to meet the debt. For all practical purposes page 30 New Zealand has no provision to meet the accumulating debt. Sufficient for the future is the debt of to-day, as well as the debt of the future.

One cannot blame present Ministers for their policy of "no provision for the constantly increasing debt," except in so far as they have not reversed the pernicious plan introduced by Sir J. Vogel. But in regard to new responsibilities which are being heaped up for the future, and for which Mr. Seddon refuses to pro-vide our share to-day, is it too much to say the policy of putting on to the future a burthen which ought to be provided for now is infamous?

The two superannuation schemes, which have already been provided, the railways and police, have never been reported on by an actuary so far as Parliament knows; indeed, with respect to the former, Sir J. G. Ward scoffs at the idea of actuarial soundness. He sets up his judgment on the matter in direct opposition to actuarial warnings and advice, and does not see, or will not see, that experts who have made these questions a life study may know something.

Parliament has, however, made a complete investigation of the teachers' superannuation scheme, and knows that to make it sound for original members there must be provided, in addition to the teachers' contributions, some £12,000 per annum forever, and for new contracts approximately another £5,000 per annum, or £17,000 in all. That is the only method to make the scheme sound. The Education Committee twice resolved, despite Mr. Seddon's active opposition, to recommend that provision should at once be made for £17,000 per annum to make the scheme sound. Notwithstanding this Mr. Seddon refuses to do anything. It was no party vote that carried the resolution on the Education Committee, when men lik Mr. Fowlds, Mr. McNab and other Government supporters supported the resolution, the public may be sure it was a proper one.

Mr. McNab, for instance, in Committee on the Bill, said, "The Minister of Education had said the colony would never repudiate its liability; but why repudiate the liability of to-day and keep them for a future generation? Personally, he would provide, not only for the interest of the fund being paid, but the capital as well. Politically speaking, it was almost an infamy to put the liability on a future generation."

Mr. Fowlds said, "in thirty years there would be a deficiency of £1,300,000, because of the non-payment of this £17,000 a year now required."

We are all anxious to secure for teachers better pay, and some provision by way of superannuation for old age and declining years, and very few members of Parliament would hesitate to provide the £17,000 per annum required; but it rests with the Minister of Education to bring down the necessary appropriation. The matter page 31 is of great moment, both in respect of the colony's credit with the outside world, on whom we have to rely for our borrowed money, and also to the teachers who may hereafter come on the fund; for a clause in the Bill provides for alterations in the scheme. It is of greater moment in view of the fact that another great superannuation scheme * for civil servants is before us, based on similar contributions and benefits, and therefore, no doubt, actually unsound.

The one great argument Mr. Seddon has used against making the provision proper to be made now is so unjust and unfounded that we cannot refrain from quoting it in order that publicity may rail forth a refutation from our present-day teachers. Mr. Seddon argues that the fund will accumulate to a large amount owing to the contributions of £17,000 per annum. He actually tells us this is necessary to make it sound, and that teachers, noting this accumulation, will not consider it is required for actual soundness, but will make demands for higher benefits or lesser contributions. That the pressure will be so great the Minister of the day will not be strong enough to refuse. One may safely say the teachers of to-day are and future ones will be, too honourable to make any such unjustifiable demand, and it is firmly believed a future Minister can be found with backbone enough to say NO to a wrong thing.

* Since writing the above the Government Bill for the civil servants superannuation has made its appearance, and to every one's-surprise the scheme differs materially from the teachers' saperannuation-it is proposed that the contributions by the civil servants shall be smaller than by teachers, and the benefits in many respects greater. This will not help actuarial soundness, and certainly cannot lead to satisfaction on the part of teachers. Why should they be worse treated than civil servants?