Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 1933

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Commonwealth Fiscal Policy [5 SEPTEl\1BER.] Address in Reply. 267

'rUESDA Y, 5 SEPTEMBER, 1933.

:\Jr. SPnKER (Hon. G. l'ollock, Gregory) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.

ADDRESS IN REPLY.

PHE~E)~T:\'fiOX A~D .ANSWER.

l\lr. SPEAKEH: I have to report that on Frido~- la·t I prescntc:l to His Excellency tLe Governor the Address in Reply to His Exccllcnc.;-'s opening Speech c~,grced to b_y the House on the 29th }~.ugust, and that }lis Excellency ·.;as pleased to make the follow­ing reply:-

,. Governn1ent IIouse, " Brisbane, 1st September, 1933.

" l'llll. SPEAKER AXD GEXTLEME:-1,-

" As rcprhcnta ti Ye of His :\Iaj esty the King, I tender to you, and the mem· hers of the Legislative Assembly my sincere thanks for the Address in Reply to the Speech which I had the honour to deliver when I opened Parliament on the 15th August.

" I shall personally, and at the earliest moment, conyey to His Majesty your expressions of loyalty and affection to his throne and per··On.

" I have every confidence that you will give the most careful attention to all matters which may be brought before you, and that your one aim is to work for the welfare and prosperity of the people of Queensland.

" From my knowledge of the people of the State, I am convinced that they will wholeheartedly co-operate with you in your work, and continue to show that determination and courage which has

21)8 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Papers.

enabled them to fare difficult days. I sincnrelv trust that. for the spirit which they 1"1ve shown in the dark days of <h'prc,,sion, they will reap the reward of 111any prosperous years ahead.

" You may be well assured of my most sincere and hc,uifolt wishes in your work and endcavo!lrs to attain this end.

"LESLIE ':VILSON, Governor."

DEATH OF :viR. T. \VILSO:i\'.

H~:PLY TO ::\Ionox OF CoxDoLexcE.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to report that I lmve received a letter from the widow of llw late Mr. T. \Yilson, expressing her appreciation of and thanks for tho message of sympathy forwarded as a result of the motion passNl by this IIouse on the 15th August.

QUESTIONS.

\YmTs AND Su:YPIOKSin Issc;En TO REcOVER IxcoJIE A:'>fD L1ND TAx.

'\Ir. CLAYTOX (Wide Bay), for Mr. TOZEU (IJympiL), asked the Treasurer-

" Since the IlrcJcnt ~o-.-~)rrnnent took office-

1. Efo·,v n1any writs and/or sum­nlon,:;;es b c. Ye bern issued in rcgar J to-(r1) Incmnc tax assessments; and (b) land tax assessments?

2. \Vhat WclS the total amount sue:! for?

3. \Yhat was the total amount eo]. lectecl "!

4. \Vhat was the total amou11t d cxvcnscs incurred'?"

The THEAS1:7RER (Hon. \Y. Forgan Smith, Jiuckay) replied­

" 1. (a) 547; (b) 80. " 2. £30.716 16s. 40. " 3. £6,529 3s. " 4. £404 9s. ?cl."

HYORO·ELECTR!C SCI!E;)JE, SHIHES OF \YOOTHAKATA .IND l"l;>;AROO.

Mr. KE:i\'XY (Cook) a ked the Trca-surer-

"1. }[as the Ranon Falls Hydro· Ekctric l'mvcr Board applied for an Ordt'r in Council authori:;ing it to suv­ply Di,-ision 3 of the Shire of Woo­thakata and the Shire of Tinaroo?

"2. \Yill he favotuably consider a rcqucct to lll"oviclo a loan from the rl'rea::;ury for snch extensions or, alter~ uatin'ly, to authorise the i~suc of debC'n­turcs by the bourd 1

" 3. L he aware that a poll ,,·as taken hv the \Yoothakata Shin' Council oH 8th April. 1933. at t.he request of the ::.Iarecba ChrtJnb- r Qf Con1mc'rce on the question of the l3onrkc Falls H ~-ch-o· Electric Scheme. and that the poll re· sultcccl in an amrmati \"8 vote of 353 to 141?

"4. Has ho declared euch poll invalid'

"5. If oo. have the <>lectors of Ko. 3 Division of the ShirP of \Yoothakata a right to a furtllPr poll on this quPstiotl before any proposal to supply power from the Ban·on Falls station to Divisions 3 and 4 is approved?

"6. Is he in favom· of the lastmeu­tioncd mcthocl of supply, and its cxton. sion ln th0 near future jnto thf' ar(1 ~l~ rncntioned ?"

The 'l'REASURER (Ilon. Forq;an Smith, Jlucku.'J) replied-

" 1. Ko. "2. /\.ny request will be considered on

its n1crits. " 3. I undcr.,,_<tand a 11oll Vi'as -taken in

Division No. 3 of the Shire of \Voo­thnkata merely for the purpose of ascer­taining if the electors of that diYision were in favour of the Bourkc Falls scheme for an electric supply for 1\fareeba. As no alternative proposal was submitted for the decision of the electors, a poll of this nature accom­plishes nothing. In any case, the council had no authority to take the polL and the result has therefore no force or effect.

"4. The Home Secretnrv ha.s not declared the poll invalitl ·

" 5. I refer the hon. member to sec­tiom 12 and 306 of the Local Authorities Act.

" 6. Anv scheme based on sound eco­nomic pr.inciplcs which will supply the demand for t1 1cctric currcut at a cheap rate will, naturally, be con~idcrcd."

RAIL ;\IOTORS rx "CsE ox SnTE R.ULWAYS.

l\Jr. ::\IAHER (W. -'f Jfor• ton): I desire to ask the ::VIinister for Transport \vhother hr• ha~ ans1.vcrs to the fol]o,YintJ: question~, which I addrrssccl to him on the 29th A11gnst :-

" 1. :Flow n1any rail rr1otor.~ are IJOIV in use on the Sbtto railways':

"2. \Vhat was the total cost of build­ing tl1cse rail 1not Jrs?

'· 3. IIov·l mauy arc being huilt o.t pre­sent?

" 4. What as the cost of-(a) }lotor· spi1·it; (h) lctbricating oil: (c; repain and replacements; and (d) Y\.'agc s~in operating the rail 1notors for the period 1st July, 1932. to 30th Jmw. 1933?

"5. Ho'IY n1anv brrakdo~sns, derail­ments, and accicl~nts of all kinds haYO orcurr0d since the rajl Inotor seryices were fir"t iuanguratod ?"

The Jilll\lSTER FOil TR \!\SPORT (lion .. J. Dash, JiundinuiJ/Irm) replied~-

" L Fifty-two (revenuo-prodncing cars). "2. £146,519 13s. 6d. "3. Six. "4. (a) £15,141; (b) £932; (c) £2,887;

and (d) £9,888. "5. 211. Dqring a period of six years

and th roe months."

PAPKH.S.

The follo,,:ing paper~ \'\'ere }aid ou the table, and ordcn•d to be printed:-

L 'l'hirtv-first annual report of the Corn· n1i.s~'ioncr of Taxes oP the operations of the Income Tax Acts during the year 1932-33.

2. Eighteenth annual report of the Com­missioner of Taxes on the operations of the Land Tax Act during the year 1932-33.

Rail1cay Superannuation [;3 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 269

PW IXDUSTR Y BILL.

IXITL\TI0:-1.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICCLTURE (lion. F. W. Bulcock, IJarcoo): I move-

" That the Home will, at its rwxt sit­ting, rc8olYc itself lnto a Con1n1ittcc of lhe Whole to con,ider of the dcsira bl c­ncss of introducing a Bill to regulate the pig industry, and for other incidental purposes."

Que~tion put and 11a::;:;scd.

RAIL,YAY SUPEIL\l\'NL'A'l'IO:\' .\.CTS HEl'K\L DILL.

SECOXD READI:<rG.

The l'RK\ITER (lion. \V. Forgan Smith, Jiad·1y) [10.37 a.m.]: I move--

" That the Bill be now road a seconu time."

The attitude of the Labour Party tmvards this measure is \vel! known by all the peop:o of Queensland. It will be rccall<ed that wlwn the Hailway Snperammation Bill \ms Jirst introduced in 1930, the Labom· Party, then sitti11g in Oppo~ition, moyecl that the vvhole srhernc be subtnitted to an actnarial invcsti­g·alion and that the report of the actuary be pro··ented to Parliament before the mca­,,Lne was further proceeded with. The com­mon sen5.e grounds for that propoeal arc so ob1·ious th11.t they require no further elabora­tion frmn n1o at this ~tagc. During the lud election campaign tlw Labonr Party also intimated that its attitude towards railway supcranntHttion \\·ou]cl depend entirely upon a-n aciLlarial inn:stigation. \Ve pledged our­sel;-cs to haYe a thorough actuarial inYesti­gation of the schcrno and its operations and he guided Dy the result. That inYcstigaboll has been madl\ and the Bill is the rc,ult. I propose to outline the genesis of the cchemc and to subnlit good reasons ·why the GoYcrn­urcnt have fonnJ it nrg-ently ncccf.sary t,:)

repPal tho existing Act. _\.Jr Investigation Boa.rcl ,.·as Ullpointcd under " The Halhvny Su'lcrannuat1on lnv()stig-ation Board Act of 1929," and it, report ,~·as cubrnittcd to the then l\linister on 20th !\larch, 1930. In that report reference \Yas rnade to the C"' ')Cntj a.l featnrcs that should be embodied in any ~rhen1c that would be satisfactorv in the cireurnstaiJrcs then obtaining. The~ cssCiltial fcuture;:; enumerated Qy the Investigation Board in that report were-

" 1. Thet it should become appcicablc at an early date.

"2. That the Government should be in a position to retire aged rncrnbers of the son-ice with a minimum of harclohip.

"3. That it should apply to all mem­b0rs of the service arH_l not to a, sr'ction only.

"4. That the least pm·,ible demand on the Government for assi~tanco be rnade.

"5. That it ·was necessary to con~id0r primarily the requirements of tlw lower­paid employees who arc the lc:1st able to n1akc provision for old age.

The retrenching of th(~ raihYay service was nndoubtcrllv one of the basic moti\·es which prompted ·the illoore Government in this matter. lt wiil be remembered that during the 1929 election campaign the l\loorc Gm·crn­rnent promised that employees would be continued in the railway service until seventy

years of ag-e. 'Vhen thov took oiJicc they discon•recl that the:v cmiid net carry out that prornisc, and as an n Hernativc a rail­wav superannuation schc1ne "·as instituted nn~l thi,s proYided a rnc'ans of rl'trrnching ~ 1Hnnbci~ of IllC'n in the ra.ilv.:av service bv e~tnblishing a fund L.v contributions frorl1 the rcrunining C1nploycf'S. The first schcrnc ;·,ubmittcd b,v the InYcstigation Bocrd iududec1 the follcn,·ing proYi~ions :-

,,(a) Cornpul~orv l~ctircmPnt at the [lP'e

of sixty-five. 0

o

"(u) Voluntarv retirement between the ages. of :;ixty and sixty-i"lvc on a reduced pC11Sl011.

" (c) Contribution bascll on a flat nto perceutage 011 ernolurne11ts.

"(d) A minimum peneion of £110 for fifteen years or uuch.'l' uf co11tribution.

" (r) An increac'O of such pension at the rate of £5 for each yc•ar of contribu­tion over fifteen yc<ns "i[h a n1axinnuu of £260, but in ~10 casu exceeding rate of pay on l'ctirerncnt.

" (/) A pension of half-rate to a pen­sionl'r's vvido-.Y during \Yido-..\hood.

'· (y) A breakdown pension in eaw of P('nna11ont iucttpacity.

·' (1,) Voluntary purchase of additional JlCnsion on rctirerncut to the value of any extended lcaYe and/or rcti1·iug allow­ance.

"(i) Voluntary purclwsc of increa:<'d pcn!'iiou up io prescribed n1axinntn1 b., cash paynH~Ht on rctil'euwnt. " . " (j) Ecfcmd of payrnell1s actually made 111 case of death, retiren1cnt, or ~\'ith­dnt·~ t~l. but without interest.

" (k) IlltC're3t at rate of 5 per cent. ver anrnu:n on rnonthly balanct~.

"(l) :\'o immediate mbsidv horn the GoYcrnult'nt, Lut a guaruntccv of i.hc lJCll­

sions iu ca~c of necc.ssity."

This schcrnc was rcfcrn:d to an actuarv and a rc,port was obtained from ::Ylr. R. Thodey, F(•llow cf the In~titutc of ~-\ctuarics of Sydney, under elate of 7th :vlay, 1930. 'The actuary's report disclosed a deficiency in the scheme of £3,429,049. :\lr. Tlwclay stat<'d-

" Thi~ deficiency rcpre·cnt_, tbe snn1 r~:quircd to be inYestccl at the iDaugura­tJon of tiro ocheme if it is to have a reasonable prospect of carrying out its (:ngagernent-:; \.Yithout further den1and on the GoYernment.

" The propo2ecl rate of contribution, Yiz., 64- per crnt. of salaries js onlv sufficient for ('ntrants (or thos~ 1vho ar'8 now in the serYi-ce) who,.o ages do not exceed twcnty-seYen-th, so represent only slightly oYer one-fifth of the whole employees.

" All other members of the present staff represent some liability oYer and above that pi'OYidcd for by their con­tributions ....

" As it is proposed the t the Govern­rnent shall guarantee the schen1e it would bo possible to meet the position indicated by the deficiency by a grant in perpetuity of, say, £175,000 per annum. Should actnarial valuations mado from tirno to time disclose diminu­tion in the deficiency, this annual grant could be reduced, but it would hardly

lion. W. Porgan Smith.]

270 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

be pos3ible to anticipate any such reduc­tion for, 'ay, twenty years, by which t1mo the fund should have accumulated experience enabling a more exact esti­mate to be made of the \\hole position.

" As an alternative, ofl'ering an imme­diate reduction of the dcflcie<ncy, and consequent proportional reduction of the annual grunt, the scale of benefits could be reduced or some benef1ts omitted ... the statement previously referred to (viz., 30th June, 1928), will show to 1vhat extent this WOL!ld be po"'ible, but it will bo noticed that tho provision of the 1ninin1um. pension of £110 per annun1, to contributors, represents a capital bUm of some £5,325,000, or nearly three­quarters of the gross liabilities."

The features of the report of the actuary were that the contribution rate of 64 per cent. \\~as onlv sufficient for contributors "\\ !lo.--~· :1p.-e" dicl nut exceed twenty-seYl'H-tho number of employees in that category being slightly over one-fifth of the insured persons eligible for benefits. It follows, therefore, that tl1Q acceptance of the reruuini11g four­fifths cf the employees for superannuation bc·ncJits imposed a liaJ,ility on the fund out of all proportion to its capacity to hPar in rela­tion to the premiums charged for such insurable cm·cr. The report of the actuary indiLatcd the obvious to the then Minister a·, is apparent by a statement made by the hon. member for J\1urilla when speaking in this Assembly when initiating the Rail­way Superannuation Act Amendment Bill on 17th September, 1931, when, according to " Hansard," page 862, he declared-

" A pension of £110 per annum to a raih~ay employee is equal to £1,100 paid into any insurance company in Aus­tralia to provide a pension of £110 per annum, bL!t that would not make any provision whatever for the 1vidow of the en1ployce.''

The report of ::\lr. Thodcy was referred back to the Invmtigation Board. The board sub­mitted a further report to the Minister in which it >vas ctated, inter alia-

" From an actuarial vie,vpoint, the Government is faced with the alterna­tiYt"' of (a) GiYing a substantial subsidy; (b) of taking an ultimate risk; or (c) of abandoning the establishment of any schmno of superannuation.

" The advantage of the existence of a scheme, howeYer, would assist the Go­Yernrnent to n1cet pre.':.ent necessities and retire aged employees without undue hardship. and this set off may be con­.~iclcred to Lr; ~uffici('Utly con1pcn: .tting to warrant acceptance of any deferred risk.

" The actuary shows that a contribu­tion of 12~ per cent., or 2s. 6d. in the £1 on salary would bo necessary to permit of tho establishment of an unsub­siclised fund applicable to the whole of the present service, and this rate is quite out of the question."

The quotations that I am giving, ncces­Barily at length, both from the report of the actuary and from the report of the Investi­g.>tion Board itself, indicate very clearly two things. The first is that the board was conscious of tho financial unsoundness of the scheme that the Government proposed to initiate. It a.!so indicates that the then Government wore cognisant at that stage

[Hon. W. Forgan Smith.

of the ;·isk they wore running. They pre­ferred to take that risk, leaving the diffi­culties that obviouslv would arise to future Governments. Their immediate objective vv as t lw di:·unissal of rnon over sixt',T ·voa rs of age and the paying of a pension tO t~hem, the charge for those pcnsio11s being on the remainder of the employees. The unsound­llc..;;:s of tho scbonio n1ust be apparent oven td those ·with no actuarial knowledge or experience. ~o insura11CO scltorue in cxist­ot:ee ctny\\'here can be sound if tho rates t ko no cogni~anc€' of age. Under the -Vic­torian railway superannuation scheme the rutcs are bascrl on the age of tho applicant for . benefit. The Queensland public een-ice ~Eperannuation scherne~ though now cornpul­wry for all appointees to tho public sen·icc, \ras not at it:-) inception comllU1sol'y for thoso P"'l'Sons alrc 1dy in the public service \vho \\'(•ro on:?-r thirty years of a,g0. ::den1bcrship of the fund wns left to the option of officers over thirty, specially reduced rates being fixed for those over forty. The whole prin­('iplo of insurance, whether super.anrn~ation 01 gcnt:ral cndcnvmcnt insurance, n1ust incvit­ubly Le based on a rate that takes cognisance of tho age of the beneficiary. No regard, }IO\YCYer, was had to that basic principle in arriYillg at the schcn1e now under discussion. .a.IJd it Uccanw clear that in orch~r to continue 1 !1is sclwrnc either the GoYernlnent would be called upon to mnkc large payments from consolidated revenue to the fund, or the scheme ·.:oulcl ha\'0 to be alter0d to provide for a charge on the wage·. bill of the railway Nnplo:<~ee.s of 12~ per cent., or 2s. 6d. in thu £1. ObYiouslv no railwaYrnan could uil'onl to pay that iiTipost on hi~ wages, nor could tiJC State afford to find the difference.

The board then submitted an amended '~('hcrnc, w·hich-

(a) Retained the minimum pension of £110 per annum;

(b) Provided for a contribution rate of 6* per cont., but with provision for the reduction of the 1naxi1num pen­sion from £260 to £200.

As pointed oat by the actuary in his report on the ori~:rjnal scherne, the .an1ount of grant to the fund could bo reduced by rrducing tlw scale of benefits. The actuary also cmphac.isc-d that the provision of the £110 rninlrntnn pension was nearly three­quarters of the gross !iabilty. 'l'he amended echeme, therefore, provided very little relief in view of the retention of the £110 minimum prnsion.

The amended scheme was not submitted to any actuary. Obviously if the Hrst scheme rr·qni<·ccl an annual grant of £175,000, the ~llnC'ndcd scheme, in view of the facts pre­Yiously jndicated, would require a surn in the vicinity of the same figure.

The board"s amended scheme was minuted b:: the then Secretary for Railways, the hon. member for JV1urilla, as follows:­

"Adopted, G.J\1. " Decided to take risk. " After forty-four years an accumu-

lation of £6,052,839."

That figure was based on the wages then payable in the whole of the railway service. It had regard to a contribution from the men of 6~ per cent.. not 5 pc1· cent.. as subsequently proYided for by legislation in this Chamber.

Railway Superannuation [ 5 SEPTEMBER.) Acts Repeal Bill. 271

Speaking at the second reading stage of the original Bill. o.n the 19th September, 1930, the then Mmrstcer, the hou. member for 3Iuri1la, had this to say, vide " I-Iansard," page 1098-

" The figures show that after forty­three YL<>'s there will have accumulated in the;_ fund a sum of £6,052,839, and, accorchng to the actuary, that is when the srhcrne will Legin to vvcakcn."

I\o actuary's report \Yas CYer obtainPd on the sdwme that was adopted. Tlw :Vlinis­tcr a>sertml that the fund would commence lo "·oaken in the yc•.ar 1974, when it would haYe ac-cumulated to the extent of £6,052.839. Including an annual grant of £10,006 bv the GoYornment the :VIinistc)r stated tha't the fund >Yould accmrwlate to £7.500,000 in 1974, and aga111 rcpe:ttcd (vide "Hrtnsard," 24th September, page 1190)-

" According to the report of the actuary and the report of the board itself, it is at that period that the fund bcgi11s to \H akrn ... "

The ::\Iinister fmther stated in Parliament (vide "Hansard," page 1191), in answer to the questwn-

" Do yon not think it would be a fair thing to €ubmit the final cchemc to an actuary?"

~aid:

" ThP GoYcrnrnent is thoroughly s.atis~ fied that \Yhat they are doino' is rrerfecllv safe.'' o ~ "'

I propose to giYe ihc facts .-erws the t:Iinis­ter's advocacy. The definite st.atcrnents quoted above ,,~CTO n1adc in Parliarncnt b-, the hon. member for 1\Iurilla on the 19th all;] c4th September, 1930.

At that time there was a .-ailablc to the 1\tlinistcr a nF•mor.andurn fron1 the Chief Accountant, who was ClL~:,irrnan of the [nvestigation Board, in which inter alia the following facts '\V ere recorded:'- '

" (1) That the board's calculations were ba-sed at 61 per cont. on a taxable sa~arv and "~gc•s bill of £4,400,000. "

"(2) That subsequent reductions in cmolun~cnts. and pooling of tin1e (since the estrmare was prepared and the dalo of presenting the Dill to .Parliament), had reduced the taxable salary bill io approxm1ately £3,900,000 per annum.

" (3) Thr' application of a 5 per cent. c?ntnbutron for the first year, instead of 64 pe1· cent., on wh1ch the estimates were hrst based, would produce an income for tho first year of £195.000 instead of £275.000, 's originally e'timated.

" (4) The. continuation of tho 5 per c_•nt. contnbubon for the second year \Yould reduce the estimate of the fund balancG hy a million pounds at the end of fmt;·-three years.

" (5) The continuation of the lowc•r rates and contributions for all time would dram the fund at the end of forty-three :vc·ars by "bout £5,250,000."

All this information was a.-ailable to the Mnuster when the scheme \Yas first intro­duced in l'arl iamont. The :::llinistcr, how­e.-er, prefoned to give Parliament c·stimates which even at that time ho had been offici­ally informed could not be accepted for the rca:;;ons just Inentio11cd in the 1nomorandum I have ·quoted. In other words, the con­ditions had changed prior to the Bill being

brought boforo Parliament. Those facts \Yere kno\\'n to the :Y!inistcr. The; figures giYcn by tho }linistcr ignored tho5e changed conditions to >vhich I have already allLHh,d.

'l'he amending Bill of 1931 proYiclecl for-­(a) Continuation of 5 per cent. contri­

bution; (I!) Compulsory retirements . o£ em­

ployPcs bcbvccn the age~ of Sl'\':t.v and sixt.y-l"tYO on proportionLtc supcrannna~ tion benefits.

The 111nnagPr of the Supcr~LlHlUation Board made a report to the :i\linisier, dated 14th August. 1931, anU again P111phasisf'd-

" (a) \Yhcn the calculo.tions of the InYe;;bgation Board 1,V£'f(~ nutde, it \YH<S

estirnatcd that 64 per cent. on {~al'nings would produce £275,000 pC'r annum ... but O\Ying to sub5cqucnt reductions in staff, extension of pooling, percentage reductions. etc., the receipts hrwe been considcra blv less than the estimate, and have been 'falling Pach fortnight ...

"(b) Thollgh the receipts ha,·e fallen con~idcrably, the number of pensioners is con·iclcrablv in advance of the esti­

tO the rct irernent of so rnany con the ages of sixty and

The managc;r of the board at that time reitnated to tho then :::\Iinistor that the receipts in actuality had heen considerably l'Oducccl as compared with the estimates, and th(~ drain on tlu: fund considcrablv increased. Kot~.Yithsta-ndl11g those• adYices,~ the bon. member for i\Iurilla, when the amending Bill >Yas before l'adiamcnt in 1931, reiterated the statements he hac! macle to the Homo >cwclve n1onths previously on tho lntrocluctton c£ tho scheme. As reported in "Hansard" of 7th October, page 1163, he sbtcd-

" The first ftgtuf'--3 supplied by the actuary in his report arc being verified as thrc scheme goes on; but, when he made his report, the scheme '\'as based on 17.000 employees. and. mYing to the fact that the number of ernployeu has been cm1siderablv dccrpasccl. it js c~tj­matc<:l that at the end of fortv-fi.-o vears there \Yill be an accun11~:lJatior;: of £5,000,000 inetcad of £7,000,000, as e-ti­mated at first bv the actuarv. But that does noi affcc·t the soundne"' of the fund jn any ,'hapc or fonn."

The mere matter of £2,000,000 alteration in tho estimate in a period of twelve months was, according to the then J\1inister, neither het'<'· nor there. He bnu;hc•l rltat ai1·ilv asicle as if it had no significance or bem.'ing on the question. In the same debate the then Minister repeated his remarks that the nctuarY vvho renortcc1 on the schPJne ha(l said that the fund :would be sound for forty-five years. I propose to repeat these four facts-

(1) That the scheme adopted by the ]\foore' Government had not been referred to an actuary;

(2) That. in fact. before the passage of the 1930 Act, the Minister was advised that the board's calculations in re· ,pert of the nxn0ndcd schc'Jnc­which was adopted by the 1.1oore Government-required revi:;wn because. as reported by tbe chair­man of tho board, the subsequent reduction in emolument,, and pooling of time have considera.blv reduced the taxable figure which at present is

Hon. 1V. Forgan Smith.]

272 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

C<Jual to approximately £3.900.000 pc r annum. At 5 per cent. this will pru~ duce in tlw first year, £195.000, and in the followinu: year, at 6.\ per cent.. £245,000 ... "

That \Yas, in September, 1930. (3) That this fact must be contrasted

with the Minister's dofmite state~ mcnts to Parliament (vide " Han­sard," page 1190, on tho 24th Sep­tc•mbor, 1930), that~

"In the first year of the fund there will accnmulO:te £281,355."

The hon. mom ber for 1\lurilla sa id that in the first vear the fund would accumulate the sum O'f £281,355, although he had be;,n adYiserl by the board that the estimated nceipts were £195,00') at the time the stat<·~ lncnt "\Y'tlS rnacle. That leads 1nc to the fourth fuet T wish to einphasiso-

(4) That there is an irresistible inference tlHtt the :.Ylinistor doliberatolv mis~ led Parliament, and probahly his own caucus, in view of the facts that are now placed on record.

'Yhen the Labour Government took office we directed an investigation by an actuary, as was promised in the party's pro-election prograrnrnc. The actnary selected "\Vas 1\-Ir. R~ Thodcv, 'vhose report dated tho 27th Sr'picmbPr, 1932, tliscloscd cho lmnknl:)t 't te of the scheme. Inclccd, his dis­closures reYeal that the scheme is worse than oven the most dismal anticipations could have imagined. Inter alia, it stated~

" The result of the valuation is set out in some detail in the valuation balance-sheet attached hereto. It may be explained that the object of such valuation is to set out the present value of the fund's liabilities, for both exist­ing and prospective pensioners, and, against such liabilities. tho assets repre­sented by the' present value of fnturo contributions, etc., with any funds or other assets that may be available. The result shows that the assets were less than the liabilities by more than £4,400,000 as at 30th June last."

The report also stated--" The financial position disclosed in

the valuation is unsatisfactory, and IS

duo principally to two factors~ (a) The largo number of pensioners

who hctve made inadequate contri­butions for the bcneftts they are

(b) receiving; The still larger number of male contributors at comparatively advanced ages who \Yill not con­tribute arloqua.tely for the bonef<ts they will receive.

" Should the Queensland Government deuide to continue the present arrange­ments they must assume a capital lia­bility of some £4,400,000.

" Instead of providing this sum at once the GoYernment could pay to the fund annually an additional sum of £286.227 for thirty years, or £241,016 for fifty years~this, of course. repre­sents an additional charge on those using rail transport, or on the general tax­payer according as the matter may be adjusted in go,~ernmental accounts.

" It may be noted that the foregoing refers only to the capital sum, or its

[Hon. W. Forgan Srnith.

annual equivalent, "~hich provide; for the rights of present pensioners and con­tributors.

" New malo entrants to the railwav serYice -whose age exceeds. say, thirt~;) will bring additional liability on the fund.''

The actuary'•, report also emphasised~ " The large doftcioney and the prospect

of its increase, if modifications arc not made, render the whole position un;;atis­factory, while the present method of asse:~3ing contributions is also unsatis­factul'y, and, nlorcoYcr, incquit:-thle .... If tho present rrrangcn1cnts aTe to be~ perpetuated, then the Government should nnke the additional annual payment to the fund either £286,227 or £241,016, as rncntioned previously. Thi::: is 1nore than the contributions now being paid by con­tributors, and would, therefore, repre­sent a subsidy on something better than a fifty-fifty basis."

In other words. to make the fund sound financially, the actuary reported that it would be nccc'"lrY for the Government to pay iJ:;to the fund annually an an1onnt in excess o[ tbe amount of the entire contributions bv the employees m the service. The nctuary · s report also emphasises those points-

1. That the assets reprt'sontc-d only 40 per cent~ of the liabilities.

2. That on that basis the pension pay­able would be approximately £44 per anuum.

That is, £44 represents the actual amount of pension \Yhich the present income would justify on a sound basis of endowment insur­ance. \Yhat member of the Opposition would take out an annuity or insurance policy with a private co1npany \Yho.se business and accounts would not satisfy a competent actuarv? ObYiouslv no one would do busi­l!CSS ,;:iih such a company. A deputation from the combined railway unions at Ipswich waited upon me in connection with this matter, and this report of my reply appeared in tho "Daily 2\fail " of 27th May, 1933~

"If an insurance co1npa.ny had put fonvard such a scheme, said the Pre­mier. it would have been satisfactorv for about ton years, but at the end o"f that period those responsible would ha ,.e been in g.aol.''

Section 24 of "The Railway Superannua~ tion Act of 1930" provided for an actuarial investigation of the fund as at 1st October. 1933, and as at tho same date every fifth Year after that date. The section provides, inter alia-

" :'\" o person shall be deemed to bo entitled to any compensation by reason of lany altera~ion in any presc1·ibed pension \Yhich may be made by any Act amending this Act, or by any regulation, or by the board, or by the Governor in Council in consequence of any actuarial irg estigation or otherwise under this Act."

That section very clearly indicates that the then Goyernment know that the scheme was basicallv unsound. 'l'hev also realised that it WOL!I~l probably see them over an imme­diate difficultv and that a future Govern­ment, either themselves or another Govern­ment, would have to reinvestigate the scheme. Section 24 really means that on

Railv·ay Superannuation [5 SEPTE:VIBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 273

an a:::·tunrial investigation tho Governor in Coun·il or Parliament would have the right to antend the scheme and that no contribu tor vould have any grounds for compensa­tion lw virtue of anv alteration in the schcJ)e: I am pcrfcctiy sat.isfir l that had the .\Ioore Government remained in power, and hacl this scheme been continued, very drastic alterations would have been made in r he _LA\ et and in a manner that \Yould not han· been satisfactorv to the contributors concerned. Obviously tho amount of an insurance or endmnnent policy is dictated by the capacity of the contributor to pay, a:Kl that again, in the cuso of a supcrannua~ tion scheme is determined bv the \Yceklv car11in:....s if such a scheme is" to be based 011 an'- ndnruia.lh' sound foundation. It is impo.;:;:-;ible to 1;1akc the cxi·~J.ing ~eh erne in auv \Yav attractiYe to tho recipient~ of tlH_: Uenefits, bc~au~o the chal'go to be inl!HJ<'d upon tllC' wage~ of thC' y,-oi'kPlS \Youkl be so hcavv as to an1ount to an intoler· able "·ecldy or· fortnightly impost on the aycrago earnings required for general sus· tenanu. H,ning regard to the principles that I have already enunciated, the scheme camwt be amended, and in the intereot.s of Loth the workers concerned and the St..ato th.~ ,chl'me must be brought to an end as earl" as is humanlv possible. \Vhat would the• , ;\Ioore Goyen1ment. have done in thG c1rcun1stance~ nO"\Y disclosed? Either ono of t\Yo courses would have been ayailablc. Fir.-t. thirty annual payments to the fund c,f £286.000, or fifty mmua I payments of £24l.OCJ, as recomrncnded by the actuary. As srater1 in the report of the Investigation Board, dated 20th :Ylnrch, 1930, an essential frc1tm·" of the scheme from the point. of view of thr> J\Io(Jrc Governrnent \Vas " the kast pD"ible demand on the Government for assistance to be made." Had the Moore GoYt:'TDilH'nt rcrnaincd in offic0 the lldoption o! thl' first proposal woqld, admittedly, have been beyond conception, having regard par­t.icu]nrl:- to their general record during their t0rm of office. The second alt<•rnati,·e would haYC' br.'cn to reduce the annuity payn1ents rayablc to present and future pensioners from £110 to £40 per annum. This assump­tion seems to be ju·-tified by the remarks of tltf' hon. member for Murilla during his srecch upon tho Address in Reply this -..e~::;;ion, when he said- .,.

" EYf'l'Y proyision "\vas n1adc in tho measure which we introduced to amend the scheme so that it could be continued frorn yt.~ar to year."

I !tav<' already given ample reasons why the a banclonmont of the scheme is the only alter­natiY0 left to the Government. The pro­Yisions of the Bill ttre-

(1) Contractual rights of pensioners now on the fund will be preserved.

12) The rights of a pensioner's widow to a pension at half rates upon the contributor's death will also b,, safe­g-uardocl.

(3) Refundmcnt of contributions upon ret1rf'nlcnt, 0ach amount earn1ng SaYings Bank interest rates in the nwantime. Refunds will be made whether an employee is compulsorily retired on reaching age limit, or whether his services are terminated at any time by the Commissioner under the provisions of the Railway Acts.

(4) This method is somewhat analogous to the purpcses for which the con­tributions \Ycre originally exacted.

(5) Power is being taken to refund the amounts, either \<holly or in part, at anv time if the State's finances will permit.

(6) Contributors rnav utilise their credit with interest i1! the fund for such purposc'3 as-

(i.) Reduction of loan or wortgago debt or interest in respect to· a loan rn<Hlo under the following Acts:--" Tlw Agricultnral Dank Acts, 1923 to 1931." " The State "\ch·ancos Ad of 1916," "T'he State .. AdYanccs Corpora­tion Buildings IInproYcrnont Act of 1932." "The Workers' Homes Acls. 1919 to 1930," " Tho Discharged SoldiPrs' Settlenwnt .. ~cts, 1917 to 1830," and otbcr Cro1:n inst.run1Cll­taljty or corporation rt-pre­sPuting the Crovvn.

(ii.) (a) In the payment of prc­n1iums on any policies of life insurance c•ntcrcd into prior to the ]lassiqi of this .. \et with the State Insurance Office con­stituted under the 1916 to 1923 .. -'\.et in fa Your of any snch contributor, and existing- at the paS>ing of thi.s Ad. (b) In paYmt'ld· of an\~ life• insurance poiic': \Yhich a contributor mfLV cnt(H: into after t1lc passing Of this Act Ycith the State Insur­ance Office. (r:) Renev:ing any life policy \\'ith the State In­surance Comn1issioner 1vhich a contributor has allowed to lapse, subject to appro1al of tho Insurance Commis~ioner.

T1w number d contributors who may be r-ligiblc to utilise the provisions of the sec­tions jugt quoted on account of loans or mort.gag0s fl·o111 the _Agricultural Ba11k, State AdYanccs Corporation, etc., is 1,125, of whon1 687 have already ginm intimation of their c1csiro to take advantagn of the provisions proYidPd in this particular clause. The con­tributions of the employers mentioned aggre­gate £20,765.

General statistics in regard to insurance policies have been furnished bv the chairman of the Railway Surwrannuatio1~ Boarcl. Thew show that the number of insurance policies in the e1nployecs' owH narne.-; entered into prior to the passing of the Bill was 6.500. Applications have been rc-''ei,·e··l to date from 694 employees for premiums to be paid from their contributions, aggregating £21,910 in respect to existing, IH~\v, and reinstated policies. Thcsre figures show that the pro, visions referred to arc being a Yailccl of to a Ycry large extent. .As a n1atter of fact, Pvery 1nail contains applications fro1n onl­ployees for the conversion of their contribu­tions to one or other of the purposes to which I have referred. Mr. Aider, of the Railway Department, and Mr. Stanley, l:nder Secre­tary of the Treasury, comprise the committee o1•trusted to deal with all applications. They are now dealing with seycral hundred applications each week.

Hon. W. Porgan Smith.]

274 Railway Superannuation [ ASSEJVIBL Y.] Acts Repeal Bill.

The prosc·nt position of the fund rs as follows:-

£ Credit balance 30lh J unc. 1933... 385,396 Employo('s' rontributio11S since

inception of scl1emc 521,900 Of hich the contributions of

eJlllllo: cos not now recciYing superannuation is 415,750

Contributions of employees >vho are receiving superannuation benefits aggro:;ato 106,150

The pcmions paid for each of the y<·ars ended 30th June, 1931, 1932. and 1933 arc as follows:-

1930-31 1931-32 1932-33

Total

£ 30.571 69,850 81.965

£182,386

This has boon already paid irros)1ectin of anv transfer of credits to the Yarious State in;trumontalities which I ha vc alluded to pre,·ious],-. Tho c.timates of the annual prospective future paymcnh fer the next f'lX years arc-

£ 1933-34 85.000 1934-35 81,400 1935-36 77,500 1936 37 73.500 1937-38 69,700 1938-39 65,600

Total ... £452,700 Tho a-vPrago annual payJnE:mt oYer the next six years is £75,450. Tho repayment of contributions is innnacticabJo at this stage for thefie rcasonc, : ____:::_

(rt) Last year's loan approprjations are fully allocated.

(b) There arc cornnlihncnt.s for variou.~ >rorks of oYer £1.190,000 at the end of J uno last v·hich will bo dra>Yn upon this yerrr.

(r:) Repayment would iuvoh·c a similar reduction of funds available to the Go­vernment for e1nployn1ent purposes.

(tl) Treasury bills are required for deficit purposes.

I realise that necessarily a claim is being put fonvcrd by railwaymen for the return of their contributiom. At the initiatory slages of this Bill the debate centred around that point, but as I pointed out then no GoYernnv:.'nt can nl.- kn that -sun1 av:.Lilable iu anv one year without further increasing unemployment in the State. To take the exist­ing cash balances and utilise them for that purpose would mean that the provision of work and wage·_ to those vyho now have neither would be seriou,]y affected. The policy of the Govornmcut in this matter has proceeded on the principle of f.Ccuring the greatest good to the grcate ·t number of people. Railway­men have the immediate advantage of the restoration of the 5 per cent. contributions formerly deducted from their wages, which represents a charge on the cnt•h balances of the Go\'!'rllnl(•nt each year. \Yhat happened prcYion.3ly ·was this: \\'here an eruployeo of the rail \Y<l,Y ~,;rvico was being pail!, say, £5 per \Ycck, an an1ount ot 5s. \\as d<'cl.ucted for supera n11uation. The actual cash to be found by the Government was only £4 15~., the 5s. being credited to a fund. It will be apparent, therefore, that to Jind cash for tho

[Hull.. 11/. Porgan Smith.

repayment of contributions that ha Ye a 'ready been made in addition to the actual inCl'eased cash rcqnlred for wager; in the rajhv~y ser­''ico >Yould impose a charge that Hu cash balances arc unable to meet. The s'hcme Jll'OYidcd for a retiring allo·nmco. We are prcn·iding that this money shrrll be a' a".lable 1::1s a retiring allowance plu~ savjngs 1Jank interc't compounded. If at any time the cash balances aro in a position to 1nect the dwru:e, ropayrncnts will be rua do- oi~hor wlwlly or iu part. The payn1c'nt of pensions ><·ill inYolvo a charge this year of over £85,000 on the cash resources of the Govecn-mont.

.All these matters indicate the ghasdv JJaturc of the financial legacy left to us by the :\Ioore Government. Not onl·.· did thrv bring di-,>tstcr to everything they ·handled iir the realm of general finance in the State, but in this particular regard they destroyed to a very large extent public support of an i1nportant principl('. Superannuation or national insuranc~~ is a principle that can be reasonably affirmed at any timf', but if a scheme is introduced bv " Government who arc n·nically disregar:dful of the future intcrc,,ts eit!Jcr of those concerned or of the State. then that fact obYiou~ly has a d:unag­ing effect on the future of any scheme.

I have outlined iu the course of my second reading speech not only the general prin­ciples of this Bill but the actual position of the scheme which makes this Bill necessary. The GoYernmcnt propose to put this legisla­tion on the statuto-book at the earlicct pas­si blo moment. Only in this way can we write '' fini"'," at least legislativelv to a very sordid and unsatisfactory busi1l~ss, the responsibility for which must alwaYs lio at the door of the ""loorc GoYernmcnt. "

:\Jr. GODFREY :\IORGAN (Jlunlla) [11.24 a.m.] : I d''siro at the outset to reply to certam statements made by the l'rcrmor regarding what he tcrn1s the :;:ordidness of this scheme, and I also wish to deal with the remarks he mado to a deputation from Ipswich railway unions that at the end of ten years those re ponsible for the initiation of this scheme v.ould have been in gaol, if the same echeme hac! boon spousorecl bv an insltrancc company. I would remind the-Pre­mier that men shoulcl go to gaol "·hen they put public money into thoir own pockets. The Premier cannot show that either I. as the ~1inistcr \Yho introduced tho 1neasl1re, ::Jr any other mPmLer of the i\!Ioorc Govern­lnent r<?ceived any Inonctary adYantage by the introduction of this particular scheme.

The PRE~l1ER: I am not sftying you did. Are you pleading ignorance as a defence?

Mr. GODFREY :YIORGAN: In connection >Yith anv criminalitv in a measure of this sort we ~111st take i~-to consideration the fact that anything that was done by my.self or hv the Jl.looro Government was done in the i;;tr•rests of the railwav workers of the Stah', and not in the interests of any indi­,-idnal nwmbcr of the Gov<'rnmcnt at that particular· time. There is ono point 11bout which I have already challenged the Pre­rnier. lie can, if he so desires, n1ake inYesti­?ation and end-eavour to discon)r 1shcthe1~ [ or anvone else rccciYed any benefit In any ,hapc ~r form by the introduction of the Bill.

A Go n:RN~IE:>:T ::YlEo!BER : IIo did not s11y so.

Railway Superannuation ( 5 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 275

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: The Bill was first of all introduced owing to the fact that the ::\Ioore Government had made a promise to railwav employees that if elected they \\·ouk cnde[Lvour to bring about a supcr­alllllH.tion scheruc, recognising that the rail­\va:,-nlcn "\Y8l'f' jnst as in1portant and entitled io ,:;.Eperannuation as n.ny othor section of tho CUlllUlJDity.

l\11-. G. C. TAYLOR: They did not want it.

1\Ir. GODFREY MORGAN: The hon. member interjeds that they did not want iL If they did not wa.nt it \Yhy did the n:pl'et'()ntativcs of rn·actically every railway union '' ait upon n1e on the 1naUer? Ono of the first deputations I received after becom­ing S·;crctary for Rai!wa}, was a deputatioll frotn tho cornbinccl unions, not including ihe ~\usiralian Rnil~.Yays lJnion, as th(~ Au~­tralian Haih\·ays Union "Tas a,;ainst any Fupcrannuation scheme and took up tho oland frorn the beginning that they preferred a national insurance schunc. The prc.;cnt Prc­rnicr, 1orhcn spPaki11g on the rncasure as Leader of the Oppo<>ition, also said that he preferred a national in~.;Ul'UlJCO scheme, sho\Y­

ing that ho was against r:-upcrannuation fron1 the cmunJcnccnlCllt no n1attor YdH' t schcn1e \Yas introduced: just ihe sarue as the lenders of the "_\lElr.-dian Hailway;; Union were agair:3t the schl'DlC )n c;Tcry respect. That dt'putation vvaitcd upon n1e, and eventually a board was appointed by the raihvay ernployecs, und a raihY.ay on1ployce vYas electeJ as a rncrn­ber of the board. If tho raiJv, ay employees did HOt ''ant superannuation \\·hy did thoy vote iu favour of having a rncrnber to repre­sent then1 on the board in conncc6on \Vith the scheme? They were reprucnted by a person \Yhom they e:ectcd themselves.

:\ir. G. C. TAYLOR: Not one-third of the ernployecs voted.

:\lr. GODFREY ;',IORGAN: I do Hot think that is true. I have not the figures at my dic)posal, Gut speaking fron1 rnernory l think there was a very solid vote 011 the matter. The hon. member will probably be able to get the figures and sec how many -did vote, but I think he is wrong in his statement. At any rate the board was appointed, and enntnally the scheme "as propounded and placed before myself and subsequently taken ro the Cabinet. .An actuariaJ report was obtained on the scheme, and I slate definitely that I never in any way tried to hide the fact tbat the actuary's report was not in favour of the scheme. That was stated in aJn1ost evc~ry speech reported in " 1-lansard " am! reil<>rated through the whole of the country whu1 I visited tho raihvaynu:m in Yarious depots to speak on the scheme'. There '.vas nothing hidden so far as the actuarial report on the schcn1e \Yas coll­cerHcd.

The fire! scheme was altered and the maxi­mum pension. instead of being £250, was rodLtced to £200, and the GonJrnment had neciclcd to contrihute £10,000 per annum t.-, the scheme. That should have made a big difference to the financi>tl position of the scheme ; but the whole position was altered owing to the fact that, although the scheme had been -drawn up and sub­mitted to Parliament, the contribution of 6~ per cent. from the employer;s was reduced to 5 per cent. owing to the fact that n number of men were pooling time-it was thought that would only be for ono year. l'nfol'tnnately tbings did not improve. \Yo

were not 111 a position to know how long t I"' depression was likely to continue. We dld not know how long we were going to pool the men. We were living in hopes that the men in the Railway Department Y<ould get on to full time and that we would be able to employ more men than formerly. At one time there were oyer 22.000 men employed in tho department-! think that \Yas in 1926-and there was no reason then, aud tlh)re is no reason at the present moment to think that eventually, as Queens­land progresses and seasons irnprovc, wo shaTi not get more than 22,000 employees in tlw raib;ayEi. Everything point,, to the fact that men will be able to be put on full time before many years have gone by and their pay will be restored. It was anticipated tlutt the amounts .,rhich they were losing would bo restored and the fund would gradnu,lly rnako up for the reduction which it incurred for the flrst year, bccau::>o we decicleJ on contributions at the rate of 5 per '-'L'llt.. instead of 64 per cent. \Vo knew, and stated definitely in the House, that this \'.as goillg to \Yc,·kcn the fund to some extent -nothing wa~ hiddpn fl 0111 the pcopll~ in that respect. \Yo were s>Ltisfied that eventu­ally. a:3 Quecu;-=;land pl·ogrc'5sed, we would be able to strengthell the scheme, and by tlw inclusion uf section 24 in the Act we duiinitcly p1·ovidecl for .an investigation to dct.cnniriO whr~thor the s . ..:hcrr1e \Vas actuari­a lly sound after three years, and thus ensl!red that it \\ ould be absolutely impos­sible for it to g< t out of lwlld. \Yo also Jn·ovidcd that thereafter an actuarial investi­grltian rnust Le n1ade every five yearb. The Government kHew perfectly well that the :--chcrne ,;y-as of an cxpcrin1ontal nature. Even 1 hu actuary who reported en it ea id that lw was not definitely sure what would bppcn-that it was a matter of experience .ac; years 1.vcnt by. That po;;;ition also was recognised by the boan1, as its report said cLat time wou!Ll tell and that alterations \nmlcl have to be made. \Ye m ado proYision for such alt•'rations, and to-day the men \Yc'nld welcomt> them. I am satisfied that if a ,-ate were taken nf the railway employees '" to whether superannuation should be 'ba'Jdoned or the scheme should be amended a m,,jority would yote in fayour of the lntter altc•rnative.

1\lr. \Y. T. Kro;G: Wlwt ts the good of la !king like that?

:Ur. GODFREY ""10HGAK: I am in a pP-ition to know as much about the opinions of the 1·ailwavmen as the hon. n1cn1bcr. I lwYo met hur1dre-ds of them who have told n1e definitely that when they Yoted against the scheme they did not J+nderst.and it and that had the,;- thoroughly understood it their \·otcs v.:ould have been given in its fayour. lion. members opposite will agree with me in that statement. The railwaymen are asking for a vote now, but unfOrtunately the Government arc not prepared to giYe it w them.

The Pre1nier forgot to giYe hon. 1nen1bors ~orne information \Yhich at any rate ·would !:an' been of value to them and which ho \Yould hayo giYcn had ho desired to give full information. He has the adYantage o·;er me in that ho has all the papers at his rlispos>tl and that there are some facts and ftgures I ha Ye not been able to retain in my memory; but he did not tell us, for in­stance, that the 250 or 300 men who dis­missed themselves because they went on strike

Mr. Morgan.]

276 Railway Superannuation [ASSEJ\IBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

withdrew all their contributions and that­as I am informed on good authority-they v;cre not asked to pay into the fund when thev were roinstatcc1. That fact would naticral!y oaken the fund.

The flgur0s -which I gaye originally were preparecl by the board and s~ow that !;ad the orig·inal scheme been put mto opcratJOn ~that 'ls, a scheme pro-riding for pcn3ions of from £110 to £200 per annnm 'and con­tribntiom of 6~ per cc•nt.-and lmd the number of men in the clc;partment remainccl at 18,000-the munlwr on \l'hich the board based its c'l!culations-and had the \Yagcs remained at the same leYcl-at the time there was a possibility that they \Vould be; increased in the future in exactly the same way as thf'y "\Yere actually rcduee-1-had the~;;~ thing~ happened, then at the end of forty-three vcnrs tbero viTould havo been an acctunula­tion of over £6,000,000 without tho contribu­tion of £10,000 a year by tho Government. Thi3 later contribution would have increased the amot!nt to the credit of the fund by approximately £2,000,000. These were not wy fig·ures. They were prepared by the board and handed to me and appear m " Ilansard." I am not responsible for them, lmt so far as I an1 .c:t\Yaro thcv 1voro correct. There ,-,·as no rt'ason \Yhv th(~ board shoul·rl n1icllad the Minister or, provide him with ilgnrc:":l that wore not correct.

Of course, cortain things happened. as wo know. \Y c know that the fund \\ ~s \Yeakcncd b\· circumstances over \Yh1ch \Ye a~ a Co\·Crl1,1TI011t had llO contrDJ.

:\Ir. \Y. T. Kum: Did vou know of them when you introduced the" scheme?

:\1r. GODFREY MORGA:N: I knew to some cdent. I was not able to prophesy as to the future. I knew the position to some extent and my knowledge >Yas made clear to the House at the time. Any person of a Yerage intelligence must realise that if the number of cmployC'es decreased and the fund thereby declined the aggregate con­tlibution· to the fund would be leesened, ancl tJ1~d tbc fund would become -..yeakcr at an earlier period. That is an obvious truth. \\"0 kUC\Y nel'fpctJ~, \YCll that t1ll' f'C'hC'n\e \Y[lS

not souud" fro1n ~n actuarial point of Yiew at the tirnc. That was well known to everv~ bodv. but had it been caniecl out in i'ts orii1nal fonn there vvoulcl haYc been an accumu htion of £7,000,000 at the end of forty-tllrec year . IIovvcver, circu1nstances over \Yhich the Governmcut had no control inter..-cncd and the schPn1L' \Yas considcrablv weakened. The latc">t balance-shoot in my pm>'c';sion is that published in the Queens­land Wocldy ~otice of 2nd July, 1933, and it indicates that up to 3ht December, 1932, the fund stood in credit £349,914. That is an indication that the fund was growing and would continue to gro\Y.

The Premier has already quoted from the rPport by the actuary. It will appear in " IIan;,.1.rd, '' a11Ll I sec no reason wh:' I should rovcat the report. but I do propose to 1nake certain conn11cnt~ on the orig;inal sch<•nw. I should like to repeat the i!Ifor­mG tion and the figures subnlilt.cd by 1nc to the House \\hen the Bill v. as first intra· dnccd. The inforrnation will be of interest to those hon. n1crnbcrs IYho were not mcnl­bcrs of Parliament at the time. \Vhcn the uri :;inul Bill was introcluced, l stated-

" Fro!n an actuarial Yio\Ypoint, the noYernmcnt is faced with the alternatives

1·-"rr. J! orqan.

of (a) giving a substantial subsid1·. (b) of taking an ultimate risk. (c) of 'aban­doning the establishment of any ,chcme of superannuation.

" IY c either had to make an enormous contributlon or take a risk. unless we wi,hed to abandon the scheme altogether. \Vo decided to take a risk. and I shall tell hon. members later cin just what that risk is."

E might be said that the GoYemment sub­sidy of £10,000 per annum was not a sub­stantial one. However, ;ye decided to take a risk rather than abandon the scheme altogether. I also stated-

" I do ,;ot think it is necessarv to force it on to the rncn. O'vi11g, ho,v8ver, to e\~ents occurring OYer which neither I nor the Government had anY control, it was a question either of rny intro­dcwing this Bill and forcing it on the n1en, or of disrr1issing· 500 or 600 men, and putting them in the position of being a rhargo on tho nnemployment relief fund. It was considered better to take the action which is now being adopted, as thereby from 400 to 500 men will be able to leave the raihmy ser­vice and hold up their heads with pride when they go to collc•ct thr•ir fortuig·htly payn1ents under thi~ superannuation scheme, because they will know that they contributed to th8 fund. That is infi­nitely better than being forced to make application to the Department of Labour and Industry for a jub under the ' Unem­ployment Relief Scheme,' UPsides which it will ease the position of men >Yho \\ould be in competition with them for that work. Had I fo!lo,Yed the dic­tates of horL members opposite in oppos­ing· the measure I ehculd ha Ye been compelled to dismies 500 rnen, because the fact remains that wo cannot con­tinue paying men when \Ye haYo no \vork for them."

That 1vas the position wo fonnd ourselves in at that particular time. We found there \Yas in the Railway Dcparbnent an enor­rnous number of rncn rnorc than \YOre neces­sary. \~T e either had to di~rni~-, rncn, or plact' oUJL'rs vYho had reached. or \Y(TE'

approaching the retiring age on sorne schem~ of superannuation. By placing upwards. of 500 men on a schPn1o of s11pcrannuatron illlmediately we considerably ;·elievcd the financial pressure on the Hail way Depart­ment. \Vc also relieved the State finances because hon. members must realise that largo payrncnts in suJarics and '''a~~{'s \Yl'l'l' 1nadn to these men. \Vhcther that charge is met by the H.ailway Department or any other department it is a charge on the taxpayer. By the> placing uf tlH~',e suqJlus IllC'H on ~LlllCrannlu=ttion tLcy ,,·ere rC'nlO\'ed frotn thP '" a~·es bill to be 111d b.v the taxpa:·c·r.

:\Ir. \V. T. KrKG: Did von make an elec· tion promi··e to keep men in the c railway ~crvice until they reached the ago o 1. seventy yours?

'\Ir. GODFREY l\IORGA::-.J: I do not know \Yhat prt.:nnise \Vas n1ado in tl1at rc:-;pect.

1\lr. W. T. Kn!G: Yoq ought to know; you were a rncmber of the GoYerrunent.

Mr. GODFREY :\IORGAN: Unfortu· nal•'h. I do know that I discoYercd a coupio. of thousand more men were employed i:1 the HaihnlV Drpartntent tl1an \-rt'l'~ nece~­sary. That position was brought about hy

Railway Superannuation [5 SEPTEMBER.) Acts Repeal Bill. 277

the previous Labour .. A.dn1inistratjon stuffing all sections of the department with labour which was not reqnired, the cost of which had to be borne by the community. The unpleasant task of straightening out matters fell to myself, and I endeavoured to dis­charge those duties to the best of my ability. The retirement of a certain number of men on reaching the retirernent ago benefited not only them, but those employees ;y}w remained in tho scrYice. The n1cn supcra1mnated, ,,-ho otherwise were faced with the likeli-hood of losing their jobs, were of pensions. and as a result of retire-ment the a;-cnuc of promotion was opened to men on the lower rungs of the ladder. The rnen re1naining in the service also rccciYed security in. so far _as their positions \\en~ COIJC'(1 rnecL wlnch tltPY wottld uot ha YC'

possessed had the scheme riot been initiated.

1\Ir. VV. T. KING: At what cost to the Btato was it jnitiated?

Mr. GOD:FREY NJ:ORGAK: At no cost. As a matter of fact, the State benefited con­siderably, because 800 men were retired from the Hailway Department on superannuation. If those 800 men receiy(•d an average ;yeekly salar'-' of £3 10.-;., v;,.rhich is a COli~Cl'Vatlve ostimcate, tlw State ;yotdd haYo been called upon to prm·ide £2,800 per week for their ·"·tLu·y or '"age.~. Thctefore, tho savings to the State through their retirement W<1S

£145,600 per annum. That is what mper­aunnaticn mca1lt to the department. rrlw Go;-ornmont were contributing a paltry amount of £10,000 in order that the State should receive that beneilt. Hon. members opposite are looking at this rnattcr sin1ply from ct taxpayers' point of ;-iew. They arc not looking at it from the point of view of the railway employee. The Premier said that the scheme was a liberal one. I admit that. I haYe admitted that in my speeches de]i\·crcd on the occasion prc\·iously quoted. I told this liousc 011 a previous occasion that the raihn1.Y Clnployc(~ rccci\·ing a pcw..:ion of £110 per annum t\·as receiv­ing hPncfits cqnaJ to o..n iusurance poljry of £1,100. Thcrefcrc, if tht~ prt:\ juuc; Go­Yemment crrNl. tlwv erred on the side of liberality, They ,;lso erred in favour of the railway Cinplovec. If \Ye have conl­m ittcd a ci·imo in 'that r'"'ard, then I do not mind ha;-ing been a part:,· to it. Appar­ently the only crime alleged against me is that I banc pbccd on the statute-book of Queensland lcgi.Jlation that provides for superannuation bcneflts 'vhich are too liberal, and to assi:-t in paying; which some­one outside will have to contribute an enor­mons amount of money. I do not regret having done that bccau· c tlw railwaymen arc part aud parcel of the public service of Queensland, and are entitled to as much consideration as other sections of the public sr•n-ice, :For example, the State contributes £60,000 per annum to the police superannua­tion fund, in respect of a more handful of men. Althongh the public service super­annuation schcinc n1ay l1n jn a, ~ound po:o-;itlou at the prosnnt moment there is a possibility that th(' Government mav ha;-c to come to i he <-JP.si~tance of that sdH~me in thB near fuhn·e, just as they ha;-e had to assist the police superannuation scheme, Surely the railwaymen are equally entitled to super­annuation ! EYen admitting that the sche1ne is too liberal, my point is that tho Go;-ern­n1ent have gained an advantage. In regard to the 5 per cent. contribution for the first

and ,. ccond years, if the Moo re Government erred in that regard, then the present Go-' ;-ermnent ha Ye also erred, because m the third year of the fund's existence they were respousible for continuing the reduced con­tribution' of 5 per cent., although they knew that the scheme was losing, "\Vhy has the Act not been amended to proYide for an altered scheme? Men are receiving a pen­sion of £110 per annum, but there was no !!uarantee in the original scheme that that ~ate would continue for all time, Pro­~~-i~ion \Yas made tbat, aft0r exarnination, the rate of pension 1night bo increased or decreased according to the soundness of the fund. But r11ther than alter the scheme the GoYernment are determined to abolish it.

The pn_,-,ent Government. arc receiYing an enormous advantage bv reason c1£ the s,chcnw in YimY of tho fact that 800 men left the railway service on pension. The present GoYrrn.rnont arc rocciYing b0ne(its to thn extent of over £145,000. We paid £10,000 into the fund each year, and we. too, rccciYed benefits to the extent of £145.000-n very good speculation, one \YOulcl say. I am suro that if 1 were able to chow hon. IncrDbcrs opposite a sirui1ar spc~culation thL':v would jump at tho oppmlnnity of securing it. ·we were j ustifwd in the net ion ''"" took, br-eausc \Ye lll'('Vcntecl rnPn froln gmng 011 I he dole and competing in the already m·cr­cro\vdcd labour n1arkct. Of conr::;e, \Ve could have di::nnissed crnployees, and in that con­nection w<> recall how a Labour Govcrn­nlcnt disn1i~.ucd ovf'r 3~000 cmployi.__.C'" at one time and put them on the romls··-c t that time there was no dole. Had we adopted the svstem that the Labour Government fol­lowed then we would have accentuated the uncrnployrneni problcrn ancl vvould have taken frorn the Goycnnnent a nulCh grcatc:r arnour..t of money than th<' Government paid towards the scheme. The Pr('r11ier was not fair in stating that it ;yas going to cost £90,0UO for the first year. and so OIL I-lo forgets lhat the Go;-m·nrncnt arc to haye handed back to them the £10,000 per annum which 1Ya6 contributed for the three years in ques­tion. The Govcrnn1ont are goi!lg to get tlw advantage of that £30,000, but the rail­\Yayn1cn arc not benefltjng in the s.an1o way. If the Govermn<>nt put that £30,000 into a fund bearing interest at compound rat{'s of 5 per cent. per annum it would reduce the liability considerably so far as that amount of £90,000 is concerned, \Vonkl it not ha;-e been hr better to put the £90,000 into such a fund and make the scheme sccum and sound once again? We admit that the fund \<as not 1inancia11y sound during tho frrst year or two~ owing to circun1:;:;ianc:t._· over which we had no control; but ;ve natnrally thought-and I still think-that while there might be a loss of £100,000 or more, that amount could have been made up subeequcntly without any lo'8 to the raih ay employees, \'\'hen lho rail\n,,-- employees get on full tin1e again and their sala,rics \Vcro increased the money could ha vo beou tt:adc up. rrhe Prerrlicr has tnken adYantage of circun1:3tances over which we huc1 no control and, owing to the depn•ssion \Yhich exists, has brought in this BilL W c are out to look after the interests of the railwaymen. W c were well acquainted with the fact that the fund was going to be in arrears owing to the generosity of the Government in reduc­ing the contributions from 61 per ccut. to 5 per cent., but we wore also thoroun,hh satisfied that that amount could have bcc;1

111r, .11organ.]

278 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

made up in future-that any loss made during the first four or f1ve years conlcl have boon spread over a future period, and that when tlw contributions of railway employees vvcrc iucn_' t~cd the schmnc could have been continued. The scheme is worthy of amend­ment, and >IJOu!d not be abolished, and lhc (~on:;rnment haYB erred in that regard.

EYc'n lhr Prcrnif'r. when speaking on the Bill when fir~t, iiJtrodur,ed, stated that he ·,yas in favour Cl£ national illtmraucc, dciinitcly showing that he did not bdievo in super­annuation. irre:'ilH~ctivo of any schcrno ·which n1ight be iJJtroduccd. That 1vas the atti­tude (akell up by .Mr. ::\loroney, of the Australian Itaih", aYJ Union. \Ye kno~~v that raihYay ~upcrannluttion rneant that tlw uulous v.;ould not have the same control of railway sctTanis--the Jnilihtnt section~ at anY 1rlte \Yould not ha,~e the sau1e control m·cr iho men as they would haYc if there was 110 ~ttpcranlluaiion schen1e, aG they kucw that the llll'Il \Yould think twi{ o before thev \ 1 cnt OH strike. Thev would know thev wer'O going to lose ~onwthing if they did tlu_tt, and \Yould consider 1natters. It v.~as, there­fore, again't tlw priuciple of the Labour Party to hcn-o superannuation. That is shown dcfmitl'ly by the history of th Labour l)arty. During the fourteen year,. ibey '\~ere in pO\YCr in (~uecnsland ihcre was not o11e election nt >Yhich the Labour Governrncnt di cl not promise to introduce a superannua­tion schcn1e, yet 1d1en the clcction5 \Verc m·er and the promise had senecl tho purpose of getting the Yoto" of the railwaymen the matter \Yas she!Yod and nothing was done. \Ye found only the other day that thoro wero 450 men appointed to pcnnanent positions in the n.ail way Dcpartn1ent. If SUIJCrannua­Lion had rernained in fore.~ the Gon~rnmcnt could not ha.-e made those 450 men vor­mancnt, but by doing a>Yay >vith the super­annuat-iou chcnlc th~~y were able to do so. t:lomc of those men had been employed for a short. ponod and others for a longer tirne, but ow1ng fo age and othe1· rca.::;oll6 h.a,d not boeu appointed permanently. They wcro principally rncn engaged in ruaintc11anco work.

Tho f1gures at my disposal also show that during the first two years of tho scheme sufficient rnoney was paid into it bv those tYho vvero about to retire on pens~ons of £110 a year, together with the £10,000 of Government subsidy and tho interest Gn that amotmt and the interest on the contributions

employees, to defr:cy all tho costs of scheme for the first few years loss

£14.000-so that all the money contri­buted by the rall»ay employees other than tho~o \vho wero goi11g out imnwdiatelv ,v,ould be lying to the crfJdit of the fund: That u,otwy should have been used to repay to contn butors tho amounts they had paid in, but the Go.-crnmont have rlecided not to do >0. We say they are not playing the game.

\Vo also say that they are not playing the game becau~o they are differentiating bet·,.cen classes of their employees. 'l'he Prc­nuer quoted figures to shov-- that n Jargc number of mon had taken ad.-antage of the o!Ier by the Government to allow ccrtaiu beneficiaries to have their contributions to the fund used to repay obligations to certain Go.-crnment institutions. These nwn, there­for?, ha.-e received preferential treatment, whilst others who do not owe money to Government institutions, but have obligations to private companies are not to get such

Uvlr. Morgan.

rclit'f. but are to lm.-c their money held back bv· the Government and are to be credited \\;ith but a very small amount of intc1·est on it. These latter nwn aro just as nnwh entitled to tl,eir money and just a' anxious lo got it as tho other men, and the Govorn­r:ncut have no right to dlscrirninaic as between classes of their employees. They aro just as much entitled to the money they ha,·e paid in as if they owecl money to the Govcrn­rncllt. l{pr'ent1v the (joy(:rnrnrnt u~cd to retire Tr, :~_~·Hll'V, bills rllOllf'V t.hat c ndd ha Ye

bc('n paid to these yery ra.ilwa:ymPJL

I an1 verv f'orrv that the GoYcrnn1cnt arc nLolishing the scl~clne rather than an1onding it Tho railwavmcn are entitled to ~upcr­annuation 'rh~v (rnt, it fron1 tlv l\1oore G-oYerurnt'~lt anc( n~,~~- thl'Y an~ g·etting tho cold shoulder from the prHcnt CoYon1monl. \Y c on this side of tho IIousc arc pcrfcctl~v sah,ftcd that the scheme cctn be amended and n1ade a \!;ood ,,.::bl'llle to the bendit of all co11eerne{f E\-cn in 1931, \Yhen the schen1e ,.,-a•; amended. :VIr. Alder, the chairman of thr bonnl, sub111ittcd a rf'port showing that thr3 sch:-->1ne could bo continued. IIo said~

•• In applying a SUJ10r<:tlliiuation scbcn10 to the Hail>''". Department it \Yas ncces­san- to acloptc one that >YOuld not inflict unaue hardship upon the laq;c per-

of agcrl employees then inrlutlcd slafl'. · A flat rate was therefore

inc ·,.1n1bcnt, othPr\Yiso th,- :38 old.c:r cnl­ployees would ha.-o been compelled to eventually lean) the scryrce \nthout any pro\-ision for their declining ycars.n

\V c arc condcn1ncd bv the P1·emier for not making the scheme apply only to the younr,,~t· geu0ration in tho department. for makrng It apply also to thmo who were 65 :~·cars of age and therefore about to retire. Thus we arc again eondemncd for liboralit.~ '" c arc told that wu \H'rc ·wrong bcca~,L)r: T\·.--~ made proYision for the old men who .,-ero to n·o out short!,-, so that thev >nmld ha.-e son;;.thing to liv·o upon better 'than the old­ago JH•nsion. l\Jr. Alder further stated, 111 his report to mr-

" r:rhc nurnber of pensioners who came on to the fund at its inauguration was therefore somewhat abnormal, and the short working time offering doubtless induced manv other employees aged between sixt,; and sixty-fonr :;cars to apply for th(, superannuation benefits."

'l'hat is right to some extent. A number of railw,nmen did voluntarilv retire between the a,;os of sixtv and sixtv:five years and in so doi'ng became benefactors to their fellow­workers. They retired cheerfully on a _pen­sion of loss than £110 per >tnnum. QmtEe a number of tlwm recognised tho seriousness of the position and took adYantage of the pension scheme to retire and at the sa.me time to cxtrmd a benef1t to the romammg employees. This report was made in 19.31, and I should like hon. members to grve 'pocial attention to this part. of the report-

" ·with a return to better times, which all fervently hopo is not far distant, tho additioiJal Pmployeos connng on to the fund will decrease >vith resultant material benefit to tho f cUtE<. '.l'he pre­sent percentage cannot therefore be taken as a guide to future operations."

We did not know what was going to happen in the future. I cannot agreo with the con­tention of certain persons that the railways as a public utility will eventually cease.

Railway Superannuation (5 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 279

I hold the view that they will romc more into prominence and that it will be nec€S-5ary to increase the 15,000 rail\' ay employees probably to 20,000 cmploy(ces by the inclu­sion of young men. This will aid consider­ablv in strengthening- the fund. In normal tim.es the Railway LDepartmont is able to absorb between 200 and 300 apprentices, and they will become contributors to thcl fund. Evcntnall:, the employee' will bo able to contribute the 6k per cent., and this. tog-ether with other alteratiolls in the schcrriC, will rnakc fur an ornincnUy sound schPrrlC. Tlw report also states-

" \Yith tho pooling svstcr11 in opera­tion and the percentage reduction off earnings the fund's incon1c has, of course, been materially rcclucecl, but even upon the present reduced basis it is estimated !here should be a balance of approxi­mately £2,000,000 in the fund in fifteen years' tin1e."

I should like hon. memb(ers to note particu­larlv that he poiuts out that there would be '"approximately £2,000,000 in the fund in fifteen vears' titnG.'' The Premier con~ demncd me; for my part in connection with t.hf~ raih,,ay snperannua,tlon schcrne. It would appear that his condemnation was based upon some sort of belief that I was putting the money into my own pocket and that I wa-, robbing sorncone for rny O\Vll

benefit. All the facts tend to show that the fund \\oulcl eventually be strengthened and ihat subsequent factors would more than make up for the deficiency in the fund during its early 0p0ration. The payn1ents to tho superarHill-ation fund wcro reduced considerably because of wage reduction after the scheme was initi'1tecl. That fact would tend to weaken the scheme. Any man pos­sessing any knowledge at all would know that a scheme dependent for success on per­centage contributions from wages would weaken if t.he wages bill and the number of contributors were reduced. On the other hand. if wages increased as we1l as the number of employees, it would help to strE:'ngthcn the srheme considerably, and as time went on H healthy fund would be built up.

I int<>ncl to quote from "Hamard" to sh(HV how even an actuarv can make a n1is~ take. The hon. member 'for Kemwdy, who has an intimate knov>lodge of finance, has nlreacly dealt with the financial aspect of the scheme. I desire that the figures and information supplied to l'I'Ir. Thod0v should be supplied to an inc!C'pondent adnury. .I condemn lho Government for ctekin::; Mr Thoclcy to report on the solvency ur othcr­wi!::=e of the schcrne when h,~ bad n1rcady furnished an adverse report. Mr. Thodoy is connected with one of the laro;" t life assuranc:: offices in Au.~tra1ia. \Ve know that tho·.e offices arc opposPcl to SUJWmnnua· tion schemes of any description. Could t.ho Government not have obhined an acluary outside a life astmranco socit2ty to g·ot an opinion on !he scheme? If I he n•port \H'l'tl

not fa vourablc, no ono could haYC urged that rt was a biassed report. \Vhv did tbo l'romier select 1\Ir. Thodey?

1\Ir. G,HR: \Yhy did you select him?

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: B,,causc J thought he was a good man.

l\1r. G.\IR : Now you say he is not.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

.Ylr. GODFREY MORGAN: Was it at all likdy that Mr. 'J'hocley, who had preYiously furnished a condNrmatorv ropmt, would now report favourably on the scheme·: The pre­vious G-oYcrnlnent paid hlrn sornothing like £50 for the report, and it \Y(L:3 uuly w~1ste of public money in asking him to fumish a second report. The Premier pradic,Jly told J\'lr. Thodey that th" Government were giv­ing hirn nn orJportunity to go over the schen1e ag-ain and again furnish an adverse report. The report of an independent actuary might have given us food for thought. "\V e would, at least, have be<'n able to compare the report of the two actuaries in order to ascertain H they were in disagrecrno11t on any matters. Had the Govcrnmcnt been just, and h:td the Prernior boon actuated with a desire to deal impartially by the scheme, and was not seeking to make political capital-his party had previousl.v conclewned the scheme-they would have shown a big­!K''" 1vhich would have appealed to hon. rnen-dJers. I ha \~G nothing per~Sonal against Mr. Thocl(''', and when l selected him pre­viously I drcl so believing h;m to be a good man. It is possible that the l'remicr was afraid to obtain a report from an inde­pendent actuary. An inclepen<l.cnt report might not have borne out J\1r. Thocley. The raihYay superannuation schen1c -does not matter a snap of the fmgers to nw, pcr­sonallv, \vhat I did as J'v!inistcr \Vas in the intereSts of railwayn1en after ha viHg taken eYery fact into considcratiou. I was guided in my recommendations by the facts and figures placed before me. I recognised 1 know nothing about superannuatlon and everything that I submitted to the 'party and to the Cabinet was supplied mo hy the actuary or by those connect eel wi 1 h thn railway superannuation scheme. l had nothing to hide, just as I had nothing to gain. I lose nothing because this scheme is going out of operation. It will not aff< et my repttlation a, .. a parliamentarian.

~\Ir. GAm: In futuro you will be known as, " Take a risk l\Iorgan n !

Mr. GODFREY MORGA=": I have taken many risks and will continue to take risks, because a rnan \vho never takes a risk and never make" a n1istake never get,,. anyvvherc.

Mr. GAm: It is all right taking a risk with sornel:"ody else's money.

Mr. GOD.FUEY MORGAN: I take risks with my own money. In this instance l was taking a risk in benefiting a number of men who were entitled to beneficial treat· mcnt. The extraordinary part of the whole business is that the present Government which in the past have spent thousamls of pounds of the taxpayers' money for their own particular benefit or for the benefit of the section they represent are not to-clay prepared to take any risk in helping the rail way employees of this State. The Labour GoYcrnment, hovvever, took a risk in rfB-pect of State enterprises and lost £5,000.000 as the result. To-clay we are pa:iing interest on that money, and generation after genera­tiun will continue to pay for tho ghastly xuistake of State enterprises. But. no one on this side of tho House has suggested that those who were responsible for that mistake should bo put in gaol. Hon. members oppo­site who experimented in the matter of State enterprises for the whole of Australia are condcn1ning the l\Ioore Government for taking a risk in regard to this matter. The Premier read the notes which I made on

.Mr. Morgan.]

280 Rail1cay Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

the papPi'S. There was no necessity to do that because I had already told the House just vvhat: n;y attitude on the matter was. Hon. nwrnbers opposite condemn me for laking a risk in order that I might give a benefit to wme poor oll people of sixty-live years of ago-people \vho have borne the hectl and burden of lhc day-people who have laboured in the heat of the West--

~.1r. \V. T. Kew: J\'ow you arc getting sentimental.

Mr. GODFREY MOHGAN: J\'o; I lmow the conditions of the men in the "\V est; the hon. rucrnbcr who interjects does not. I have been reared a1nongst these n1en, .ond know the conditions under which they and their families live. Yet I am condemned for taking a risk on behalf of men of that description! The present Govornrnent exhibit " tender regard for the interest of the gc·Hel·al taxpayer. Tho extraordinal'y thing is that on all occasions the Labour Party has sho1vn no rct;ard for the taxpayer. No con~ideration has over been given to him; ho has been taxed up to tho hilt.

l\Ir. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mem­ber is wandering from the ,ubjcct.

!\h. GODFREY J\10HGAN: I am replying tu rcrnarks of hon. rnernbers opposite. Tho Premier ha;; condemned this Dill principally because the community generally will be taxed to an euormous extent to keep the scheme going. I think 1 'IIll justified in saying that the Government have always dis­regarded the interests of the taxpayers in any rnattors \vhich the Govcrnn10nt con~ sidcred \YOre beneficial to themselves or their O\Yn sectional interests.

!11r. \V. T. KING (Jfarce) [12.24 p.m.]: I must say at the outset that I do not think I ever iistened to a more humble ad of contrition than the speech which has just boon delivered bs the hon. member for Murilla. The hon. member endeavoured to apologise for the actions of himself and his GoYcrnrnollt in originally introducino­the measure which is about to be repealed. He made the statement that he was getting nothing out of the repeal of the superannua­tion fund. Anvone would think from his statement that included in the Bill was a clause that ex-Ministers were going to be t.uperanuuatcd. \V o quite recognise that the hou. Incrnbcr is not going to get any finail­cial benefit out of hio public actions, and the Government do not impute any nnworthy motive in that regard to the hon. member. Ho very profusely apologised this morning und mad£ the word " if " look very small when explaining a number of issues during his speech. Ho endeavoured to entrench himself behind the word " if " with the object of defending himsel£ and his Govern­ment in regard to this meamre. l-Ie laid particular stress on the fact that the men were going to lose owing to the generosity of the Moore Government. He seemed to suggest that because the Government could be generous at the expense of the people of Queensland the Government were doing the right thing. Con11110n sense s1JOuld suggest that a superannuation sc-hcino should be sound from the inception to the end, and that no Government has the right to be generous at the expense of the people as a whole. Every person in the community is entitled to have his rights safeguarded, and no section of the com­munity has a right to receive anything more

[M1·. Morgan.

than a superannuation fund can carry or ask the general community to gJYe him some special benefit. I think that is axio­Inatic, and under the circurnsianccs that phase of the question can be dismissed.

I w:ts rather amused at the speech made by the hon. member for Sandgate on the initiatory stage of the Dill, when h•e made certain allusions to the mea_-u,·e vYhich it is proposed to crystallise into legislation. He said that :'l.lr. Thoday's report on the ~c1wme nothing rnor·c than a scjentifte uur .__ the flgull>> of an actuary with ~cgard Lo thu scheme and all its rarnifi­c~l.tions can be taken as a scientific guof-;. I-Ic would appt'ar to jrnpl_r: that n1oney can come from the clouds, something like rnanna frorn heaven, but it cannot con1e in that way. The hon. member, by way of comparison, dealt with the position in the wool industry, but I do not know how, by the dig-htcst concept of imagination, the rise or fall of markets in the wool industry arc contributing factors in connection vvith n supera11llUation schcn1e. It sho·ws the devi­nu~ m.cthod s tho Oppo;:;jtion l'Csort to in ord.C'r to defend a measure which should never have been introduced at all. The hon. member fnrtb r said that it bhonld confer a general benefit on the community. The exact oppo­site is the cnse, hovvevor; any schon1o that merely gives a benefit to any one section >vould Jeot c·-,nfer any benefit on th<• com­nu~:nit.~· at alL

Mr. Thodcy has been brought into the discusoion. IIo is an actuary, and accord­ing to the hon. member for Sandgate. an actuarv is a man who understands his busi­ness. " The hon. member endeavoured to extract something from Mr. Thocley's report to fling at the Government, but he was unable to do ,o. lie se1id that certain things might suggest themseh-es to him from his examination of. Mr. Thodey's report. He made no practical statement that he had found anything of a suspicious nature in the report that would indicate that the report should be oyerhauled by any other actuary. \Vhen Mr. Thodey, or any other actuary, ln<lkr-, a, report, iho rnere fact of being an actuary entitles him under all circumstances to respect.. One vYonld expect some notice to be taken of tho report of that actuary appointed by the hon. member for J\!Iurilla vrho at that time was the Minister guiding the dcotinies of transport in Queensland.

Mr. SPARKES: Do you believe in the prin­ciple of superannuation?

:'llr. \V. T. KIKG: Of couse I do. I always did believe in the principle, but I bclieyc in a sound system of superannuation as oppos·_ d to a "ystcm which is on an utterly unsonnd basis. It is against the dictates of reason for any Minister to minute a paper and say he is going to tako a rjsk in a par­ticular matter. The hon. member for Mm·illa minuted the paper and put " G.M." on it. If he had put "G.O.M." on it it might have stood for the grand old man; but hon. members will admit that "G.M." stands for Godfroy M01·gan. He came to this House a ]J(l seemed proud that, as a responsible :'llinister advising His Majesty and com­prising one of the Cabinet directing the affairs of Queensland, he should propose a Bill without making anything more than a Yery cursory inv8stigation-that, in short, he took a risk.

But did he take a risk after all? At the time he had certain plain facts before

Railway Supemnnuation [5 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 281

him. They could not be denied, ami he adopted the scheme in the faco of them. .\ t the last election the M core Government made a promise that they >vould kce)l cer­tain public sm·vants in their jobs until they \\'C'rc seventy years of age, and this super­anllnation v~-as one of the n1eans they pro­po-cd to me to enable them to keep that 1n·onnse. They "\Ycro prepared to rely on a :-;-chc1ne ·which "\Yas not based on coJTilllOll seclSP

or supported b? an artuarial rPport.

The history of the ,vholc bnsincs:- is instruc­tive. Originally an investigation board con­sisting of :Mr. Rcndle, :Ylr. Allen, and l\lr. Alder was requested to go into the question of ralhvay supcraunuation. In the report they said that they could not suggest a schernc ou an ago rate basis, because 55 per Cf'nt. of the nH'H -vl'rc o\·er thirt.y-fiyc years of ag:e, but that working on thc sys!c•m of per­centage deductions f1·orn PrnolunH'nts simply and calculating on a basis of 16,670 em­ployees in the deparhncnt and a ·wage-earn­ing cajlacity of £4.400,000 the supemnnuation contributions would amount to £275,000 a yeal', at tho rate of 6~ per cent. of vvages. The ,clwnw was lhcn submitted to the nctuar.;-, who found that, it \'\·ould require a <:apital inYeslment of £7,127,755, and !hat there "ts a sl,ortage of £3,489.049 in ca.pital aYai1ablo, and that that raonuy would han~ to be found smnehoiY in order to rnake the scheme water-tight. In turn the committee reported on the actuary's rcrJort ,tncl that if the schonlC~ '"<l~ not to be would entail a contribution of 12~ lH'r coni. of wage·· to make it sound, or it >Yonld J'Cfluirc a contribution by the CoYernment of £175,000 ammall.v in perpetuity. Is it fair that raihntYrneu or anv other 8e- tion of the commuuity 'should get )n·eferential treatment to that extent '!

:\lr. GoDFREY MoRGA~ : The railwaymen were not asking for it.

.:'1-lr. IY. T. KTKG : \VhcthN the hon. mem­her can say that or not. he allowed his generosity to cloud his jndg1ncnt, as I have already indi( ,·=tte-d. The hon. mmnLer took the ri,ok that was known to be inYol,-ed and accepted the scheme in tlwt free anrl easy style he adopted when he >Yandercd through­cut Quccnsland to explain it to the mcn. lie said-·ancl I am Yet·y pleased to be able to say that he did admit it---lhnt the board sa id that there was a risk but dir1 not know what the risk >Yould be. It was quite eYidod, hmH'Yer. that if tho GoYernment subsidy was continued at the r.ttc of only £10.000 there ''-Ould be an ultinmte risk. No echcm•' should Le launched when it '·as known that thoro \vas [t ri~k and Uwt it was lHlrPrtain what that 1·isk would he. It is tani amonnt to launching a. ship and allowjng it to drift on the rocks.

In the next place the board constituted under the Act reportr d to the Minister in urnnistakablc tcnns that the an1ounts beh1g l'Pcciv·Pd under the sche1ne "\Vcre .dc·-n•asing, and that wherPas it ltarl been PXP< ·!eel that 0:1 a taxable wages hill of £4.400.000 at M per cent. he woulcl gr't somewhere in the Yicinity of £245,000, the amounts actually being receiYed wore onlv £195.000-bv reason of the reduction of th~~ rate of contribution io 5 per cent. Althcugh he was in the lJOSSl'Ssion of that lHforn1atjon, the ~i[ini~h'r allo,ved the schcrnc to continua as it 'Yas. Ho was prepared to do so in order to get himself out of the difficulty. l\'ot only was

he prepared to introdnce a scheme which >vas risky-and he did uct know thP extent of the risk-not onl v was he not prepared to submit it to an actuary-but in his judg­ment or that of his Go,-ernment he was prepared to allow it to continue when he knew the expected nccipts wcrro not being realised. He was prepared in his .-olatile v>ay t"o rely. not on his judg1ncnt, but on the needs of his position. He was prepared to be generous at tho CX11Cnsc of the people of Queensland. He had said the Act ·was lwing introducc-rl because the ra!lwayrn<;n >vantPd it, althoug·h they had reJected It, and he added that it was honestly and .sincerely wanted by the people as a whole. FoL· the~c reasons he was n·ady to give it, although be knew definitely at its genesis that it was unsound.

The actuarv told the bon. member for J\furilla and !;is Government that the scheme was unsound. The board told him that it >vas unsound. Nobody told him that it was cound. If he feels disposed to challenge the report l:Jy Mr. Thodoy, "·hy did he not appoint another actuary to OYerhaul the report that he had rocc1vcd from Mr. Thoclc-y, ctnd, perhaps, to overhaul the report hv the Inyestigation Board'! Anybody who h;,s had anythiug to do with this scheme, whether an actuary or a board, has roundly condemned it-has pointed out that there was a risk, that it was unsound and unstable and could not be proceeded "'th a a scheme. The hon. nlcmbPr for JYlurillJ.. ha;:; r-al1'd that tile scheme would bo sound for a period of forty-three years. Suppose tha,t it >Tas and then it started to crumble. Should we as lco·islators not hav-e sufficient directness of pL~rpo~e in our con1position to legislate with the ide:1 of doino- everything on a sound b:tsis '! If there is to be an ultimate risk, wlwther at the end of one year or at the f-nd of twcntv-fivo or thirtv years, ~hould we not o1viat'C that ri~k by~ dOing tlw fair a! d re::s011ablP thing- Ilo,v? Arc '"e eJltitled to gamble with the future? \Yhy should thP people of the' futuro be ca.lled upon to boar the burden of the misdeeds of a present Go­vernrncnt '? \Ye cannot get rt\~·a.v frmu the fads. There a rr· the reports. \Yhat right hnvc -..vc to disregard the1n '? The actuar.v \Oll­Ci'l rwd crumot be quPslionerl. IIe is Pntitlccl 1 o the uhnost consideration bera.use of h1s <'x.pert knowlodgP. The hon. rnen:-b<··~· for :!'.Iurilltt .-cry gently thro cs across th1s Cham·· her the suggP::<t!on that bc-canse he IS a~:o­ciatccl in ::,ome way '\ ith the Australian ~Iutual Pro.-idPllt Society he is biassed and is inten'sted to sec that the scheme is not properly illYC'..:;tigatcd. He well ~{flC\Y all tlwse tlt;ngs-if they be true-when he .called pron th{' :::an1e gcntlc1nan to rnake a suudar rP[lOrt. \Yln· ~huulcl he condcrnn the; CovPrn­ment for clo;m; exactly >Yhat he did him.self? He knc•w full well that the gentleman con­cerned \Ya~ ns.-.:ociatc.d "\vith the Auo.:tra11an l\Tutnal ProYiclent Society, but he 1 .. as pre­pared lo call him in, not bec1usc of that fact, but because he v>as -<1Yl cxpPrt and kne'\\~ h1~ work. IIoweYer, his report did not suit the hon. gentleman: election promises had to

honoured and the difficultv was oYcrcome the hon. gentlmnan being" more generous

just. Under the original scho1no a large pro­

portion of the railway employees did not contribute in a way connnensurato \vith the benefits to be received. Four-fifths of the employees ,,-ere imposing lia bilitios upon

ilir. 1V. T. Kina.i

282 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

the fund out of proportion to its capacity to bear the insurable cover. The only employees who contributed on a proper basis were those entering the service up to twenty­seven years of age. Still the hon. gentleman was content to bunch 'a scheme like that, and in face of the fact that it had been condemned by actuaries and boards. The board was continually referring matters to him and conferring with him Gll them. Ho had all the information before him, and he cannot justify his action. Ho cannot justify it by referring to " the poor old men of the "\Vest." It is time that that sob stuff v. as eliminated from this Chamber and that the person reaponsiblo for this unjw~t nwasu1·e stood l!P to his task in this Houte. 'l'ho board submitted the scheme to a proper actuarial calculation and found it wanting, the only alternative being to reduce the maximum pension from £260 to £200 per annum. Tile hon. member for llfurilla would ha vo us believe that an actuary reported on the scheme at that stage, but he did not. There is no eYidence that he did. There is evidence of only one such report and that >vas of a condemnatory nature. The boar:! reported on the scheme and condemned it bLJt th~ Minister took the risk. He con~ eluded that the scheme would be sound for forty-three years and that by the end of that ponod there >vould be an accumulated fund of over £7,000,000. He went further and reduced the contributions from 6! per cont. to 5 per cont. The board definitely told him that under the scheme adopted by Parlia­ment there would be a reduction in the amount available in the fund. It was origin­ally proposed that by a contribution of 6); per cont. and a >vago fund of £4,400 000 the c nnual contributions would be £275 000 per .mmm. Later it was pointed out 'that by

a reduction to 5 per cent. and with a wage fuud of £3,900,000 the annual contributions would be only £195,000. The revenue of the fund, calcula tcd on a basis of contributions at 6~ per cent., was e,timated at £275.000 per year. If, however, the lower rate of contrihutioi.s-5 por cont.-continued to the eml of lho pcciocl. the drain on the fuurl would ammmt to £5,250,000. All this infor­mation tYas available to tho ex-::.\Iinister .and it is significant that he did not adopt it. The figures quoted to the Houso bv the hon. gontlunan were cornpilcd bv the :I'nvcs­rigation Dc•arc1. The figur's of the actuary, ':hiCh should have been placed before Par­liament. were flagrantly disrorrarded in enry detail by him. . In ass;rning this atbturle he chd not dtschargc that duty winch he O\YCcl to ParllaJTICllt and to the people.

Tho fads 0rncrgiug frorn an investigation of the whole scheme proye conclusively Jha!· Jt "·as 1H?t rctcrrcd to an actuary at all. It .JS also evl(h:nt that the did not report, as the hon. gentleman that thr• srhcmc \Yould be 2ound for the cnsuincr forty-fiye ye"''· Notwithstanding that th~ non. member for Murilla stated that at the end of forty-five years the accumulated fund wo11c~ haY~ boon reduced from £7,500,000 to ..vo,OOO.OvJ n1 one year, ho conttnucd to assPrt that up to this point the actuary approved of thfl :oc;heme. As tho aotu>try rc;lOrted, the provJsJOn for a mJmmum pen­sion of £110 per annum represented three­quarters of the gross liabilities of the fund Kotwiths!anding this fact that provision wa~ rdamed m the am<lnded scheme. It is. there­fc>ro, reasonable to assume that the llfoore

[Mr. W. T. King.

GoYernment contemplated making a grant from consolidated roYeJmo to place the fLmd in a solvent condition. That brings us to the point when, on the return of tho ~'lT<;;ent Ciovernmcnt. an act.uary was c11gaged to make investigations into the Lchome. As the Premier has stat"d, those investigations proved that 11cople '.\·ere receiv­ing pen''.ions although they had not paid their statutory contributions, and that other people, "\Yho had attained an adnJnccJ age, were receiving benefits far in excess of the payments they had made. That fact was stressed by the actuary to tho Minister, but when embarking on tho scheme he com­pletely disregarded it. The actuary also a lludecl to the weakness of the scheme in :-:o far as COlltributions were not to bo 1nade accorJing to age, but accor·ding to emolu­lncnis recciYed. Every sou11d insu1·ance scheme promulgated is based on the assump­tion that contributions should be paid proportionately to tho bene!its received. As the l'remier further pointer! out the weak­ness of the scheme is revealed in the fact, as strecosccl by the actuary, that the Govern­ment \Yould require to rnnko annual contri­bcttions of £280,000 over a period of thirty vcars in order to make it soh-ent. Could llw people of Queensland stand up to such a p1·opositiou? }low could any such scheme bo nrncndc J as the hon. rnmuber suggests? The previouiS Governrncnt only attC>n1ptcd to cblude tho people of Queensland by intro­ducing the "cherno. \Vo n1u .t either coniinue the ~chrn1e or repeal it, and any schen10 \Yhich commits the State to a heavy liability over a pcrinJ of years cannot be retained. Thoro is no corr1n1on sense pcfmeating the anlCnchnont. \Vhcn "\Ve rerncrnber that the hon. rncrnber for 1\lurilla jnfonncd Parlia­ment that a snbsicly of £10,000 a yea1· would sufiic~- to rnaintain the schcn1e, and it is now pro>-ed that it requires a subsidy of £280,000 for thirty years, it must bo con­ccJcd that it js one of the n1ost tragic L1uu­dcrs ever com~nittcd Ly a rcspollsiblo Govern­Incnt. It is an inescapab~e and uuforgjvu.Llo blunclel'. The hon. member for Murilla se·oks to justify the mora's into '' hich he has led the railway employees and tho State by saying that they must be generous to this "dion of the public service. He also stre·c.,ccJ thot those men whom he had seen \Yorking in tho \Yestern parts cxnoscd to the snn and flies '.rero justly entitled !o con­: Hkration. The: re [HO people in tho \\~c>st who arc entitled to consideration­tlwsc pe"ple >dw would be heavily taxed if tl:e Govon~n1cnt '''8l'O called npon to pro­nde a scd:"1dy of £280,000 annually for thirty yP:ll's. These pecp:e, too, aro exposed tO t1te sun and flies, and have their tribulations which would bo increased by this particu­lnr legislaboll and ihov cinln·,--c-, <-dl sectjons of the eonununlty. ~ -

Genorcsit:~ pcrJonified was the keynote of the speech of the hon. member for llim·illa. Tlw hon. n1embor argued glibly, and if lUr. Hud.Yarcl Kipiing, the anthoe of the innnorbl "If" collie! b:we found himself within the precincts of this Assomblv durin" the time that the ho11. rncn1bcr for "~.Iurillc/\va.s ntcan­dPring through a labvrinth of " if~" that diet-illguishrd poet wol1ld }mvc been' pained to learn to what base use's the word " if " v·as put; for tho hon. member for Murilla, in his ov, n inimitable way, piled up a series of alleged argnmonts bitscd on the word " if." But we ha vc to face facts. 'l'ho .:\1 oore Go­vcrnmellt ·deducted 5 per cent. from tho pay

Railway 8uperannuation [ 5 SEPTEMBER.) Acts Repeal Bill. 283

of ra.ilway1ncn and utilised the rnonev col­lected to finance g·ovcrnmP!ltal deficits ... Yet the hon. member for JYlurilla endeavours to tPII us that the scheme was sound but e-Ycn if it ,,-·ere not sound ho \'i ant~d to be generous. I have never listened to a more apologetic speech from. the hon. member who initiated the scheme. Of course, tho hon. n1e1nber was pre':;ent at the l1irth of the scheme, and the scheme \Yhich the hon. member coHceived turned out to be a Minotaur. (Laughter.) Its continued exis­~cnce woul_cl inflict irro1mrabJe da11H1.ge, and 1.11 these Clrcumstanccs ono course of action only can be taken-it must be eliminated. It is gcnerall:,· rccognise·d that the attendants at a Lirth must po;sess the hig·hc""t qualifica­tions. \V e can ..-isualisc the c hon. member for Jllm·illa, with his ..-ast knowledge of flies and [H sb, wakhing the birth of this ill­coneciYcd forrn of superannuation; but it woald be diflicult to find a gcntlenwn more ill-equipped fm the task before him. Tho result is an ill-concch·ed scherno that sinco its birth has been nurtured on nnmitable doses of financial lactogen. It n1ust he effaced and I have pleasure in supporting the repeal of the measure.

:Mr. :\lAHER (TT't:d Jlrmlon) [12.52 p.m.l: I ruust co11gratulate ihe hon. HlC'tnbcr for J\iarco. on his contribution thi3 rnorni11g to the, gmetv of nations. (Laughter.)

I greatly regret the Goven1n1ent's dcci~ion to l'Ppeal the Railwav Sunerann.uation Acts. It is alvvays so rnuc'h eaSier to 11u1l do\Yll than it is to build up: there are ahntys Jnon~ destructive agencies than constrnctive agcnci('S in life. A:-; l understand it. super­annuation is an agrcernent eutercd into between an cnll)loyer and an employee, whereby both agree to contribute to a com­mon fund to a,sist the employt'O in his old ag·o when he becollles unprofitable to employ. Snrely any srhentc of superannuation -..,·ith snch a spk11dicl objective dwclld h>t\·o tho support of tllC'nlbcrs of tho GoYt'l'nmcnt ]>arty! They always t,ttko upon thrmsehos Uw right to s,poak for those >dw are omplo~·ed in ludu~trv. How they carrv out that under­tnkl:ng ts ttnot1wr thing; but~ the fact remains thct they claim to be tho spokocmcn of those ('1l'Iaged as Clnp]oyccs in industry.

Snroh it is "·orth while for members of the Go~cmmcnt Party to apply their minds to :-;omething constructn:c in the \Yav of as-ist;ng old employee, of the State ;;vhen they retire" E,-en in the case of tho m-called capitalistic corporations and in many other aycnuc of pri\·atc industry this i1nportant jJ:-iHeiple i:-; rccog-ni::-ed. In Inan:v co1npa11iP~. both in .1\n:·d-ralirr and throng1lout th(' \\·orld. the prjnciplo of <upcrannua-L!on i::; recor..rnisecl and provision made for contributions~ to a cmnmon fund by emp1oycr und employee. One of the we,cknesses of the present Bill is to my mind the paltry contribution of the GoYerument. The contribution of £10,000 per annum under the pre,ent Act jn no 1vay rep1·r,::;ents a fair and re·1sonablo Col.ltribution on the part of the OoYCl'lllllPnt haYing regard to the mag-nitude of the sclwme. After a 11 this is a scheme which im·ol..-es to-day 14,500 employees. Accordi11g to Mr. Thodcy's report the present capital­ise -l ..-alue of contributors' future contribu­tions is only £200.000, "-hich is altogether too small and in no \\'DV amount,, to a fair contribution by the Gov-ernment towards an in1portant raihvay suporannua tion schen1e. The Government's decision to repeal the fund

is to my mind an indication not altogether of weakness on tho ]lart of the Government, but rather supports the contentwn of the ex-Secrebrv for Railwn·"s that the Govern­ment are i·eally definitely opposed to any form of superannuation for railway employees at all; otherwise it is not beyond the capacity of the Government to bring in a modified and amended scheme. I have ..-ery carefully read through Mr. Thodey's report, and I do not think any Go,-ernment could pos­sibly disregard the report. It is evident that weaknesses ha..-e dcYoloped in the original scheme, and that pos"iblv that scheme which was pa~sed through 'Parlia­mollt and sponsored by the ex-Secrotarv for Railways was an unsound scheme; but I suppose it could be argueJ that any super­annua t1on schen1c eyer a ttmnpted was unsound. I could not find anv evidence in 1\Ir. Thodey's ropmt where 'he recom­mended the abandonment of the existing scheme. He certainly made an adverse report to the Go..-ernment, but he did not say that ,ome >Yorkable a11d sound scheme could not be evolved. Ha..-ing regard to the nature of ]\Jr. Thodey's report, the Government 'hould bo eon<:cntrating all their efforts to-day in trying to n1odify the f'xisting scheme in a v a" that would be acceutablc to all the employees alike. \Vo have superannua­tion schones for the public service and the police. Victoria and ::\cw South \Vales have superannuation schcrnes for railway servants, and if it is possible for those States to carry on a suverannuation schen1o it is not beyond our power to establish a satisfactory superannuation schen1e for our railway ser~ ..-ants. The House must be entirely bank­rupt of c cmstructi,-e ability if it is not able to modify the present scheme and put it on a ·-uund basis. It is the function of the leaders of the Go..-crnment to try to e\·olve some helpful scheme for our old employees. I ha..-e a tender spot in my heart for men who haYo spent their whole life in the service of a single employer or of the State. They should not Le turned out into a hard \Yorld without sorno proYision being made for them. I think there is room to approach this pro­blem in a different wav to that which we are 110\Y taking. ~

Tho hon. HlCinlJ('l~ for ~Tarcc said it ·has a ca.:o of abolition or continuing an nnsound scheme; in other words that it was impos­sible to evol..-e something better than the present scheu1e. ::\"apolcon Bnouaparte in one of his great campaigns \vas told by one of his great generals that it 1,; as in1possible to take a C(:rtajn po::;ition, but I\Tapo1eon said to him, " )(cyer use that blockhead of a \YOrd to rnc '' ; in other \Yords, it rncant that m"n of c.trong will and detcrminrttion will not stand the v·ord " impossible." It ~hould not be impossible to salvage the echcmo and so repair it that an equitable and presentable propo .. al could be submitted to Parliament. In Victoria the Go..-ernment contribute to lho raih1ay ~uperannuation "·h[!lllO 10s. for e..-erv £1 contributed by way of prcn1ium by raihyay offiex;rs. In Ne\v Sonth \Vale . .:; the railwav superannuation scheme pro\·idc.::; for a, prCrniun1 of 1~ per cont. contributed b· each raihnt .. officr'r to a special account. to which a parliamentary appropriation is also paid.

It would be a pity if the consistent adYo­f'nc_v of supt'rannuation by railway officers in Quccmland oYer a long period of years­I am informed by some men that they have participated in it for over forty yoars-

JJh. Mahm·.]

284 Railway Superannuation [ASSE"'fBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

\H~n' now to be brought to naught becausG the Gon'rmacnt intend to adhere to the conditions in the Bill. I sincerely hope that better counsels will prevail amongst mem­bers of the GoYcrnnwnt Party with the object of dcYising· sou1o new scherno after the present Act is rope a led.

In justification of the weakness in the pre­sent scheme wo must not loso siRht of the changed rand itions of the ti1ncs. the earlier calculations on which jt was based showed that the Rc•ihvay Department was staffed "'" 16,670 otficcrs. with a leviable salary and ":ages bill of £4.400.000. which >tt 6k per cent. would have vieldcd under normal con­clitions £275.000 p.er annum. Through con­ditions which arc unfortunately only too well known to all of m the railway service was reduced to 14,500 --th>tt is, by 2,170 officers, who uncler earlier conditions ·would ha>e helped to maintain the scheme. '\No also have to take into aecou11t part-tirne working. Tho rrsult is that to-day the levi­able >Yagos and salary bill is £3,100,000, >vhich at 5 per cent, as proYidocl in the amending Act of 1931. amounts to £155.000. 'l1 hcso conditions have had an adverso effect on the original plan and constitute ono of the n1ain contributing factors to \.:vhatcYer wcakne:3s is n1anifcst at prL'SOnt.

The pertinent question I yyould put to hon. members opposite is this: If the scheme is so intrimicallv umouncl >ts tho Premier clain1s, \vhy hauve the Govornrncnt con­tinued it fur twelve months knowing it to be unsound and taking the Jnonoy of the raihn1ymcn durillg all that period >vithout any prospect o' repaying it'! That is the point every railwayrnan wants dcarcd up. The Premier from the outset has maintained very t:trong opposition to the sche1nc. I-Io has c]airned from the out;;ct thrrt HH~ f'Chcnlo 1.va.s unsound; Lut, knov/ing that. hP \\C Jt to tho country last year and slated that if rcturucd to power tho schen1e would be rc,·iewr<l allCl, if uccc,sary, .abolislwd. \\~hy tlwn did he tako £155.000 from the railwav oiliccrs of the State dm·ing the past twelve months when he knew that tho scheme yr~s nmound, or claimed to know that it was unsound, ancl 1d1cn ho had 110 )1rospects of rPpnying the money to them? The attitttde of tho Go>-ermnont will not stand investi­gation in t l mt respoet. It srcn1s to 1nc to b•' n:trcnwl I' hEu·,h that a Gnyprnmcnt should col!Pc-t the large sum of £155.000 O>er a period of twelve months when they claimed that the scLerne IYD.s un~ound. tbclt it was their intention to abolish it, rt.nd w!wn they knew in their o\vn hearts 1 hut there \vore 110 prospects -at all of repaying that sum.

\Ybich nu1st can:-:e <:onccrn to any interest in th(1 ftnanr:~s of !he Stai c the position of our tru .t fund•3. A suprrannuation funcl is nccc;;~arilv a trust funrl. It has been Uw habit of GoYcrnments in the past to allow 5 per cont. interest on trust fund accuraulation.;;; and to uso the rYIOllP)T uccuinulatcd in the funds as a loan. That ~N"Ins to rnc to be ono of th<" di.-:tinct \.vcakur·;;;,:;cs of our tru~t fnnd scbmne. particularlv with snpnrannnai~on trn~t fnnds. If theu raihva.v !';upe1 annualron trust fund is a tme trust fund then the moneys -l.ccunrnlatecl in that fund' should not be us0cl for loan pxp0ncliturc. Thr~e n1oncvs should not ],e a.ntilablo to Governments f;n. the purpose of loan expenditure. It must cause of-Iict'r6 of the railway service to have a very poor opinion of Governments

[Mr. ilfaher.

V\ }wn. after paying the substantial sum of £500.000 into a trust fuud for superannua­tion purposes, to have the adrnis~ion of the Govonuncnt that 1.Yhcn it corncs to the can~ cc!lalion of the scheme there is 110 rnonev in trust for repayment. It is very difiicuit to go along to the men and justify that Jcticu. It is diflicult to g·o to men who look upon rncrnbers of the Govcrnrncnt and rneu1-bers of Parliarnc:nt as houourab1e rncn i'..nd inform !hem that tho fLmd8 to which they h.:vo contributed for a specific purposc---fo.r the purpose of providing an amount for old­' c.c retirement-has been used by the Gm·crn­mc·nt for purpose, other than that for \Yhich it was intended. Tho habit is a repre­hcHsiblc· on('. I am not concerned as to what GoYcl·nrrHmt adopts the habit, but some steps ,._ill have to be takc'n by Parliament to rc·ctify ihnt conditioH. As citizens, we have every right to expect that the monoys paid ill to a cpcci lie trust fund shall be retained. l a1n one of those \rho ~ubn1it that rnoncvs paid into a raihvay E:Uperannuation tru~::t fund should bo earmarked for the purpose for \Yhic:h it \Yas .subscribed, and soclJritv ,hould be prm-idrd on behalf of the officer"s who have contributed towards that fund. The security should be in the way of Goveru­uwut bouds or good trustee security. Under tlw Victorian .Act the mone.n accumulated in the raihYay ~Superannuation fund must be iuvected in high-class and perfectly sPcurc invf'',imcrJt~. That is to say, in (;overnn1ent or n1unicipal stock::; or other suitable trustee security. The sa,ne condition should apply here, uot on}.\- with regard to raihn1y super­annuaiiou trust funds but also to all others. ln th1s rc~pect, 1\lr. \\"'alter I£. Savage, lnei itute of Chartnccl Accountants in "\LlS­tndict, speaking rcc<'ntl: before the QueL'Ils­l.aud DebJting Society in regard to tho ra~l­\Vay superannuation fund, is reported thns: --

" 11r. Savage quoted the :Yiini;;;tcr as s1<1ti11g that it wa.~ irnpracticable to rdnnd the con lributions under the rail­·way ~upc~rannuation schcrno which already had bl'cn paid because wch rcpayrHCJlts \YOu~d needs come out of 1o<-!n n101H~V asai1able. The l\1iniFter no doubt Vt'LF3 UCOlTcct, "aid ?dr. Savage, but \Ya:- it not a ::!Ld con;~~cniary on public aceonnts and in1ance!

I lhink <•Ycrybodv with an understanding of the rightful application of trust funds mu't necc-barily agree \Yiih tho ~tatmn(:llt n1adc by a hlgh authority like i\Jr. Sa1. age on a llHtitcr of this kind. It clor-, not nutttcr to 1110 \Yhat Governrr1ent Joes it. I appreciate the fact that all GoYcnHnents have been iu ilw habit of using- trust funds for their O"'Jl

purpos(~~.;, regarding thcn1 as loan n1oney, and paying tlw ruling ratn of intcn·-·t for the use of it. That principle is \vrung, and cu:nr1ot be sustained, \\'hcther it is in regard to railway ~upcrallnuation trust funds, or al17 other class of trust fund. Smne investi­gation should be ruado of our trust funds i11 orJer to dovjse smne tcasonoblc control of them, and preventing them being availab:o for the u e of Governments.

The fullcis rcn1arni11g at rrC"clit iu thu schema are to be utilisPd bv the Gon,rmncnt in the nature of a compul~ory loan bcrning idcrest at 2~ !JOr cu1t. ?\obody can uphold the conditious of a co:npulsory loan. The mom'y does not belong to the Government. ft bC'lougs to the railway employees. It js a. deduction from their \1 ages. lf the Mooro Governrnent, or any Govern1nent opposed to

Raihcay Superannuation [5 SEPTEMBEH.] Acts Repeal Bill. 285

I he Lu hour Party, attcmpteu compulsorily to n tn.in 1noney belonging to crnployres in an i:1clnst.ry, \You]d there not be rnass n-w:~tings PI protest held in whir-h members of the G-oYcrnnu:nt Party would take a leading part': The GoYPflllncnt have rra1lv coll­fiscatecl portion of the wages of the 1~aihvay employees. If it is proposed to retain the money. why not pay the same amount of ir,terc~t ·which the (::i-ovornrnent find nrcessarv to pay on loans raised by the Loan Uounc~l un the I or-al market? They ha.-e tlw use of the 1110IH'Y in pr0cisely tlw ~amc ·way U8 loans raised by the g'O\'Crning borrovving nuihority. Therefore, thn GoYcrllmcnt should rccngnlsr thclc obligations to the raihYay <>mplo~·TPes and pay then1 the ruling rate of inten st.

AnothN feature of the act of the Goyorn­!nent is that raihYay ernployees are 11ot rnonev-lendc:r~. and it is their incoHtcstablc right 'to lHtYt' their rnoncy returned to ~peud in any way they please. T'he GoYcrnn1cnt in dccicliug to take and holcl £500,000 belong­jug to the railway employees are doing ~orncihing which is entirely \\Tong. As they haYe clc'cickcl to repeal the Rai[y,-ay Super­annuation Acts, and thereby aboli~h th(c superannutttiou scheme. it is their boundcn duty to rduncl to the subscribers the mouC'y at credit in the fund. TlJC hon. rnemlwr for F'L'sifcrn ,[ated a truth when lw said if he had two clc!Jts ho \YOuld prefer them con­solidat-•d. If this rnone,- has beeu usecl. as 11:> doubt it has, tlw (;oycrnment should take !hP earliest OJlJ10l"hmity of repaying it. The:· should make it a first charge on loan rnoncy. thcrc~by consolirlat.l11g the loan eon1-mitmc,nts. The fact that the CoYcrmncnt ha YC not repaid the arnount of n1oncy O\Ying to the railn-a:;-men on the repeal of the ~dn•1ne indi( 1tcs nothing n1orf' nor less than default. It is a snions thing. ctncl I am sorr:· to be. a party to a dishonourable arrallg(•mcut ·wberchy the Govcrnrnent of the State. bY Act of Parliament. rwrce to default iu their' ron1rnitrnent~ to their--own servant~. ~omething :;;irnilar harJfJCncd 111 1\cl.v South \Ya]es vvhc11 l\lr. Lang failed to pro­Yide for the ~alari('S of his public oifit'er::;. It is probably \Yone here b0~a.uso the Cio·..-c,rnnH'llt, ha1Ting u1ndc up their minds to aboli~h suporannuat-iou to raihnt~, 1ncn, f'honld haYt: taken inn11ediate steps to lH'OVide for rC'pnyment. of the rnoncys snhsrribcd by con­Hilmtors to the scheme. It has been asked wlJ('l'P "'.Yonld the nlOlJCV c•rnc from? In reply to I woulcf ay that had the GoYcrnruPnt ~ornpo:-e·l of men of public honom they wonlcl not have indulged in the Jnxnl'y--

1\lr. SPEAKER: OrclPr r The hon. mr·m· her used tho vvord " dishonourable." and llO\\ he CJLte'.tions whetlwr the Government an• compnsed of lnen of public honour. I an1 not asking him to withdraw the rernark, but I ask him to be more careful in his choice of language.

~lr. 2\IAHER: I have ahY-a>"s regarded a man who does not pay his debts as being diehonourahle.

:\Ir. SPEAKER: Orcler! I ha Ye asked the lwn. member to bo more careful in his choice of language; I hope he will.

:\lr. l\-IAHER: I can only put it this way : There is a definite debt to the rail­wa~ officers of the State and the debt has be0n dishonoured. That is obvious.

The Government say that they have not the funds to repa,.· tho debt, but they shoLild not ha,-e indulged in the luxun; of a 44-hom week for the public sen-ice which is going to absorb a)lproximately £300,000 and which \Vill be a 1norc or less pern1anent i1npost on the~ Budget. Thc~~v haYc to rrr.i.sc tltis ~~car the sum of £300.000 to pro.-icle a 44-hour we~k. It would ha.-e been mnch better for the hon0111" and integrity of the State for the Government to haYe diecharged their debt of £500,000 to the railwaymen before thev embarked on the luxurv of a 44-hour week in the pnblic sen-ice of" Queensland.

\Vith regard to the method of repayment, my sug,-estion is that the Government should have enrmarkod that SlEll of £300,000 for rdurn to the railway officers. In addition, the Go,-orn:nent recei.-ed £155,000 as rail­waynlCn's contributions to the fund last year, and I take it Hvat the 1ncn1bers of tl1e prc­.<-·ent Uovf'rnntcllt have not been sufficiently callous of the rights of the raihYaymen to have spent that sum of £155,000 a nu that thov will bo able io finance at least that a r11ount. If thev took that amount of £155,000 and the

0

£300,000 required for the ~4-hour week thev would at least have £455,000 of the £500.000 rcqnired to repay the raihYaymon. If they coulcl not flnd the £455,000 they could ha.Yo at least entered into an hononralJlo arrangcrnent ~..v1th the officers of the Hooilway Department for terms v\·hereby, spread over two or three :years, thcv could ha.-e liqniuatod the \Y}1'0!o of the £500.000 from the somce.s which I haYe imli­cated. The rncthocl of repayu1ent to men of goodwill, wen \vho clcsiro to rlo the right thing and who wich to uphold the public honour of the State. was easv. but it is evident to nH~ that the Govorn~lliont ·wished to ba-ve dw u~;::- of cheap loan n1onoy. Fivo hundred thous>tnd pounds is aYailablo to thPm by way of compulsory loan and the GO\·mn· nwnt arc able to finance on the funds of the rallwnymon.

The l'RIOIIER: That is not tnw. You know the ~Ioorc Goyernrncnt sper1t it in the reYl'nuo deficit.

Mr. 2\L\IIEH: I han; ~lrcHdv dealt with that, but I know that the Government at least had £155,000-being last year's con­tribution to the raih\'ay superannuation trust fund,.;:.. \Vhv did the Go~:crr11nont rerPiYe that money" and spend it when th('Y hacl made up their minds beforehand to abolish the scheme'! It is q-clitc easy on the part of the GoYerurnPHt to deYise \YaV'' and n1cans of returning the rnonoy to the r~ih\·ay officers to whom it belongs. A definite obli:;ation re,ts on the Government to return that moneY. Ko a1nount of argument vvill con­vince- any reasonable minded man that the Go.-ornrnont are entitled to retain that £500,000 as a compulsory loan at the low rate of interest of 2~ per cent per annutn, ·when the ru1 ing rate is nNtrer 4 per cent. The action of the Go.-crnment makes all the more imperative the necessity of an Cpper House in Queensland in order to prob'('t the earnings and savings of t~1e 1woplc from predatory raids by spendthr f: and cttllon~ GoY0rnn1cnt~.

:'.Ir. GLEDSON (!zJS1cich) [2.24 p.m.]: As the rcpn sentative of what is probably the biggest railway c,~ntre in Qu~cnsland, it is my duty to represent tho rallwaymen and do the best I can for them in this Parlia­ment. There are several other matters that appeal to me in a consideration of this Bill.

Mr. Gledson.]

286 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

I have endeavoured to get the feeling of the rail" aymen in my district, and havo attended mas,s meetings of hundreds of them and heard what they had to say. Quite a number of the railwaymen would be very pleased if this scheme were not abolished. There is a number of raihYaymen in my district and other places throughout Queensland who would be well pleased to continue their contributions and reap the benefits which WOl!lcl accrue to tlwrn when they left their work. But, on the other hand, thoro is quite a largo uurnbor of raihvaymen "\vho Jind that the very nwagl'o wages that they have been getting during the last few years do not enable them to keep up their payments and live in that state of comfort they chould enjoy.

\Vhat hrwe the men been getting during the last fc\v years in tht~ raihYay service, especially some of the lower-paid men? The wages of the men "-ho arc emplovod under the pooling arrangement at the pro­sent timo runs into £2 13s. 6d. per week. If we take from that the 5 per cont. thov have to pay in contributions, it brings th~ arnount down to a n1uch lov;rcr ''TaO'e than is ~ufficicnt for a rnan to keep his bwifo and fmnily in a state of deconcv and comfort. That has been going on for" son1c consider­"ble time.

l\ir. KENNY interjected.

l\Ir. GLEDSON: If the hon. member for Cook had t 1kon action during the time of his Go.-crnrnent to l1ring some of the sun­shine and happiness into the homos of these people they would not be in the state thcv arc at the present time. Tho conditions ilr the Railway Department at tho present time arr not -wh<Jt the;-~ ought to be, ancl ttre not what any hon. member of the Chamber thinks tho,v, ought to be. l\ o ono 'an say that concht10ns such as those are proper conditions for men to live under.

It is necessary to find ont the reason for tho intl'Oduction of this Bill. I haYo listened with a considerable amount of interest to the specche_s of the Premier and tho ex-Secretary for llarlways, the hon. member for :Mm·illa. I heard a. lot of statements that were new to rnc. as .a representative of the railwayrnen, and 1t rs neccssar;.- that the railwaymen should be informed of them. In the first place, we have to find out what was the reason for bringing in the supcraniiuation !'chomc ori_ginally. In gomg through the " liansard '' reports of the de hates when l he Bill was introduced we fmd what tho reasons wore. \Ve were told that tho l\1oore Government can1o in on prorniscs which they were not able to fulftl. One o£ the promises

made was that every employee of the should be kept on until he was seventy

yt'ari3 . of age; previously the retiring age v, as srxty-fh-c. But tho l\loore Government "tiel, " \V e will keep the old employees on until they arc seventy years of age. \Ye won•t have them going off at all." By that mcrrns they were ablo to induce quite a nnmbcr of old employees and their relatives ancl friends to vote for them and thev got into power in 1929 on those' terms. "

:\fr. ::'doORE interjected.

. Mr. GLEDSON: The Loader of the Oppo­sJiron may say that the railway cmplw·ees were not public servants; yet tho hon. n:{em­bcr for M11rilla claimed that they wore just

[Jir. Gledson.

a.,, much public servants as any other person employed by tho State.

1\Ir. l\loonrc: They arc in a different posi­tion; they arc not uuder the Public s('l'Vicu SnllPrannuation I1"'und.

Mr. GLEDSOK: Tho railway son-ants were public servants all the same and came Lmder the promise of the Leader of the Opposition at that time that the retiring age would be raised to seventy years. That, I thillk, is undisputed. Wo find that the ex-St'cretn ry for Raihvays, 1-vhon speaking in the House on tho second reading of tlw lh.ih. ay Superannuation Bill in 1930, made Hns statement-

" From an actuarial viewpoint the Government is faced with t\YO or three alternati\'es-(a) of giviug a substantial subsidy; (b) of taking an ultimate risk; or (c) of abandoning the establishment of any schcn1e of superannuation."

rrhc hon. getJtlern.an further said-" \Y c either had to 111akc an cnorn1ous

contribution or 1 a ke a rlsk, unlPss vve wishPd to abandon the scheme altogether. \Ye clccidcd to take a ri>.k. an cl I shall tell hon. rncrnber:-) later on ju~t what that risk is--

' The ad vantage of th" existence of a schc-rne, however, would assist tho Government to rrwot the prc..:;ent nccc'".­sitics and retire aged cn1plo~·ees with­out undue hardship, an<l this set-off may be considered to be sufficiently con1prn:-~at.ing to vvarrant accepta,ncEJ of any deferred risk.' ''

And on pag-e 1104 of the same volmne of " I-lansard" for 1930 we find these words:-

" On those occasions there \vas not the large nuruhe1· of unernploycd that 've have to-dav. Tho fact remains that, we have 110 -,\ ;Jrk to offer rnany men, and 1 had to tako this mattl'r of a rail\\·ay ::;upPrannnaLion schPrnc firf't to Cab-i not and then to the party. So concerned were we as to tho position that the matter \Yas left for tho decision of the party, \Yho can1e to tho conclusion that, mther than dismiss 500 or 600 meu, it

dS preferable to iutrodncu the scheme no\v under considPration. Let rnu crnpha­f:.ise in ronclusion that the 111011 who remam m the department will lwne!it more from this scheme than those "ho will retire unt1er iti3 benefits."

This morning- the hon. member put the number at 2.200-so that it is growing all the time. Hon. m cm ben opposite Lk< lan'd on the hustings in 1929 that they wore going­to rai'<e £2.000,000 for 10,000 job-;, yet dirPctl:v after, m the House, they said, " \Y c ha vc 500 or 600 men whom we cannot place, and \'. e must introduce n ~upcrannua­tion P.chcrno to rnako somB provision for them." That "'as the first and practically the only ronson giyen to u:; for the intro­duction of tho scheme.

What concerns cYerv hon. member <s whether it "·onld be possibl" to amend the :c1wJnP. The hon. nH'rnbc;r for 1\Iurilla a ncl the hon. member for Kenncdv on the inia­tory stage, said that it \vould 'be possible.

Mr. FADDEN: No; he said it might be possible .

Mr. GLEDSOX: If it might be possible we have to determine whether it is possible or not. Those h;-o hon. members seem lo

Railway Superannuation [5 SEPTE:IIBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 287

have the idea that all that is ref]uired is to take the contributions to the fund by the men, plus the Gon,rnment subsidy, plus con1pound i11terc"t on these PUHL3-\Yithout baYing an.\T regard to the payrncnts ot~t of the fund in pcnPions to those who retire­a growing liability.

J\1r. F.\.DDEX: Your imagination is only excccclcd by the; national debt.

l\Ir. GLEDSON: .-\11 one can get. is inter­est, co-mpound or othcr\viso on the surplus of the fnnd-the diffPrcncc bct\vcen what one gets and ,,-hat one pays out. If it were possible: to continue the scheme the Govern­ment would be glad to do so. They would not repeal it simply because it was intro­duced l.Jv,T a pn~Yious Go,·crnrncnt. That would b(' foolish in the extreme. No party wonld undo --omeihing simply because it had been dono by its opponents. If it were poP~ib]P to do anything \Yith this schc~n1c <•ven- me m bcr on this side of the House \Yonid lw only too glad to accept the oppor­tunity and give whatever benefit could be given to the railwaymen. But what are the facts'? I have here the most recent published balauec~shcet of tho func1, as contained in the .. Railwav \Ycckl,- Notice." This scheme '""s start0el i'n October. 1930. g,. June, 1931 ~afler it had been in operation for nine months-the accumulatPd fcmd \Yas £165,540, ancl bv D(·cc·n1hcr o£ tlu~ samo vear it had reachr•;l £237.233, or an increase; of £71.693 in six months. By ,Tmw, 1932, the fund had grmm to £2~~.106. or an increase of £52.373. 1'hc inrrea:-o durjng the Jattcr Aix rnonths VHtS £18,820 less than duriJJg the preceding six monl h'l. Bv DccPmber, 1932, the sum had grm;-n to £349.914. but this mm included all receipts ~uch a". special inh'rc~t. accrued illtPrest. miscellaneous l'f'Ccipis, and Govern­Inent Rnbsich". Tho incrc·ase over that six months was, £59,808. or £6.930 more th'ln tho increase during the rn·cvious six moni hs. By June, 1933, the fnnd had increased to £385.395. or an incn•asc for that six months of £35,481. Dming that particular SIX­

monthly p0riocl there had been n clccrcnso of £24,327 in tho accumulated funrls.

l\lr. }IOOH!·:: The GoYermnent did not collect during tho month of May.

l\Ir. GLEDSO::\: The conttibutions were n1ade up to 21st 1\I.a.y. There was a clecrna-~o in tho funcl all along tho line, and that, after taking into consideration every aYail­able rr•ceipt. In a few years the fund would hayc connnenc-:::J to Uirninish. It needs no actuarv to \Yarn us of the result. Comn1on senec dictates that. Any person who could add two and h;-o together could draw his O\Yll conclusions frorn those :f-igure~. It nray be clrtime<l that it is no crime to provide pensions for people in tlwir old age, and we ngrco with that s0ntirn0nt; but it js a crime to build up a fund by falsely pre· tending to th0 contributors that their contri­butions will prm·icle them \Yith a competence in their olcl age only to be told upon the date of matnritv that no funds arc a;-ail­ablf' for th(•ir benefit. '\,Ye claim that all the trusiccd emplo;·ees. \Yhdher of the State o~· 0£ a priYato indiyiJuaL are entitled to s.on1c rcconJpcnso after their Jifc\s \York is o'<>r. but 1Ye ha;-c no right to tell them that theil' contributions based, say, on a 5 per cont. or a 6l per cont. payment will be suffi. ci(,nt for the purpose only to tell them at a later date that the fund was swamped by those who had gone out on retirement benefits at an earlier period.

It has been suggested that the fund might be made solvent by pro;-iding· for increased eontribul ions. but ihc ex-Secretary for Rail­ways has informed u-, that he was told by an actuary appointed by hirn that the con~ tributions from the employees nmst be based on a 12~- pe-r cent. p~yn1cnt i£ thoro was to be no Gm-ernment subsidy. At that date the number of employees stood at 18.000. bllt the :Yiom·e Go;-crnment. anxious to dis· 111i--s a largo number of railway t'.mplo:,·ccs, reduc0rl the existing contributors to the fund from 18,000 to 14.161. including males and f<'mak". Mr. Thodey r('portcd to the hon. ruemhcr for l\Inrilla that it \Yould require a contributlon of 12~ per ce11t. frorn the <'arning,. of 18.000 employees to enable the fUJ,cl to \York >atisfadorilv ,,ithout anv snb­sid\·. If that is W, \\ haic rate of contribu­tion wonlcl be nccessan· to enable the fund to work satisfactorilv" if the Hnmber of employees ,,-ore reduced to 14,000. It is 1110rely a malter of calculation.

JUr. 1\[oonE: The claimanh on the fund \\'CI'C also reduced.

iHr. GLEDSON: The numbl!r of claimants Oll tho funJ \\a::; not rocluccd. Tlw· l1i1,Vl1lellt::;

to thoAe 8-H 111Cn who \VPrc rc•tircd were not n·clueed; the""," \\ere continued. fion. n1f'ln­

ln rs can calc{_Ilatc on the L~ j:5 of as 18.000 is to 14,000 iu order to ascntDin "hat per­centage of contributiolls wou lcl be nt.:cos,;:ary to 111ake the scheme sound. Tht: Oppo~ition is burt to find that it has got into such an awful jn cndenyouring to carry out :-mno of tllP promise~ rnade to the elec-tor..; in 1929. wh0tlwr it hurts or 11ot IVO

n1u~t iu\-Pstigate tbc po:;.ition of the :-chcmo in order that the people ran Yiew its un­soundness.

It was proposed that thE' scheme be con­iinu<>d at the >.lmc rate of contribution, but 011 a brrsis of reclucccl benefits. That aspect \'.as im-estigatecl by Mr. Thodey and r·cport0d upon to thP hem. member for J\Turilla before he wbmittncl the to l'arlia-rncnt. ..:\s ~1. re:-:ult of jnyp:-;t,lgations ihc· rnaxinnun pension \YUS rPdnrPd fr·orn £260 to £200. Hat.hor than reduce the n1jnimu1n ]wnsion of £110. ;,·hich would bP applicable to four-fifrhs of the> employees. it 1·ould be 1J(•ttcr to aboli~h the schPnlo altogl·thcr. The rate of coJJtribntion::; could not h.• lncn a"~0d. The cx-::VIini~ter \Yas a(h·iscd that if the ~chcn10 \Ycro to be placed on n ?onnd ba:;;i3 the nJinirnurn bc'nc:flt, on the ra..tr of contribu~ tion adoptccl, must be £44, not £110 per year. ~-\gain rather thtt:n decn~:~se the n1inin1nn1 P' nsio;1 it would be pre!Nable to D bolish tho scheme.

The oilier alternatiYe b_,- JHr. TlJnde-: in orc1C'r to cnrry 011 \Yas 1J1c o·l·ant of an adJitional subsidy. l\Ir. 1" 1hod~V YC'YltUrCd the 011inion tl1at instea{_{ of a 'sulrsiclv of £10,000 a year it would be nccr:-:..sarv ·for the G ovcrnn1ent to contt·ibute £287.000 per vear for forte- years, or· £2-~6,000 a yoar for fiftv vears. \Yhcre are '"" to obtain anoiht 1' 'qu~ntcr cf <t n1il1iou pounds fi'Olll the taxpayers to~da)y? rrhat is tho position \\ e \YC'l'<~ faced ·with. \Yr- conld not illlnOst' additional taxation in thP face of prCscnt conditions nncl falling prlcc'J.. No one would be more plca,ed than the raJlway­rncn or their rcprcscntatiY<::-.s if the scheme could ha;-e been made soh-ent by these methods. It is not possible, as will bo admitted bv arwonc who gives the matter ;Jropcr cons'idera.tion.

Jl1·. Gledson.]

288 Railu·ay Superannuation [ASSE}\1BL Y.] Acts Repeal Bill.

The next point >vith which I wish to deal concerns the repayment of tho money. Tho Dill provides that on retirement railway employees shall receive tho amount they have contribntNl to the fund, but provision is also taken in the Bill for repayment to be mad<' at anv time the Government finds it possible to do' f'O.

J\lr. :\IAxwELL: Just lwfore tbc Iwxt elec­tion?

:'dr. GLEDSON: I do not mind if it is just before the next election or even if it i-:;:. thi:-; year becanRC' quite a nurnbcr of rail­way employees could do with the. money they haYc paid into tbis superannuation fund.

l.Ir. 1\IAxwELL: At once.

1\lr. GLEDSOK: Yes, if that could be done. That is the attitude I take up. :Moncv has been compulsorily taken from them 'under a scheme that has been proved to be unsound. rrhe railwaynlen did not corno along volur:t.arily and say, " \Ve arc willing to contribute to this scheme out of our wages. n The schcrne \Yas forcctl upon thcrn against their O\VIl -decisio11. Tho ~loore Government sairl, " IV c will place the matter br>fore tho railway employees and ask them if they are prepared to adopt this schcnw." The cx-~·1inistcr for Transport ~adclrcs:::cd n1cctings of railway workers at yarious raihvay centres and ~a id, in effect, " I have pluced the scheme boforo you. I an1 going to leave the matter to you. )(ou make >our decision." The decision v. its that 5,233 ,:otPd for and 10,110 yoted against the cchc·rne: but despite that the raih,·.~ymcn \VOl'C forced iuto the positon of having to contribute to the superannuation fund. It is their money which has boon collected, and so fur a~ I an1 concerned and so far us the Go\-crnrncnt arc conccrnctl the rnonov ·will be repaid at the earliest possible moment. Hon. members opposite contend that it is quite emy to repay the mouey, a,r;d they 'llgg-ost that repayment might be made from Treasurv bills. I have dealt with this m"tter ,~erv fcilly with the railwaymcu. No ono for, one D1oment suggests that tho money could not bo gi.-cn back. 'The point is that cJ?rtain consequences 'vill arise if the money j~ repaid ln1:nl-';lio:tt·~1~,7 • 'f!.p GoYermr1(nt aro not prepared to hring ~tbout these con­sequences, nor are the rail\ .. ay employees asking the Guycrnmcnt to do so.

l\fr. KE:\XY: Oh, aren't they?

).Ir. GLEDSO?\: Some railwnyrnen~pro­bahiy friends of hon. members opposite­say Yery ddinitdy, ''If you don't give the money to us immediately we will do certain thing~.': Probably ail tho railway­m<'n want their money back imm'"liately, but the bulk of them, rather than cause additional trouble lty proyenting the expen­diture of money in channels where it will create work for those who need it, arc pre­pared to wait for the return of this mono" until conditions improYc. That is tho atti­tude of the bulk of railwaymen throughout the State. If the money could be paid to­morrow no ono would be more pleased than the Premier and Treasurer, because that would be an end of the wholfl matter. Tt is incumbent on hon. members of this party to carry on the government of the State in the intcrc:sts of. CYCI';"body here and to take mto consideratton >Yhat will be the result of any action in not paying the money.

If the members of tlw Opposition are a.ble to get m the propaganda which

[ .:1--fr. Gledson.

they arc trying to do at the pn sent tl!IH'. \.Ye know verv \YPJl that it 1s

not for the pnrpo.so 'of helping the rail­waymen, because that is the last thing in their thoughts. Their idea is to get in political propaganda against the Govern­ment. The Labour Party is at present hav­ing its jnnings, and tlte Opposition are bowling; it does not 1naUer to the-n how they bowl, they are simply anxious to bowl the Go.-ernmcnt out and to use e\'orythmg they possibly can against the Government. One wav in which thE'v think thev will be able to 'get a little kudos is by saying, " If we had had our wav we would have paid you the money straight away and you would haYe had the £500,000 refunded." If the Opposition had been in power and were ablo to do so. what would ha Ye been tho result., 'l'ho railwa~nnen are paying in tO\Yards the mwmploymcnt relief fund jnst the •amG as anybody elso; and it is 11ot right ihey shculd be singled out and told that they ha.-e to prm,ide money for the rr·licf of ;mcn1ployment. \Ye sa,· that it woulrl af!'Pct not onlv these men but the railwa,men them­selves. · If v:e had to withdraw loan money to be nsed in proYiding work on the rail­wa,·s thoro >von!d be so much kss work on the railwa::s, and the railwaymen would ]o;:;;e the \York \Yhich would otherwise come to them from the expcnrlitm·e of loan money.

The matter has been placed fairly and squarely before the men. Some of them \'i'Oulcl \velcome the repay1nent of the nlone:v at the present time as thev arc badlv in need of- it. ,~et they arc prcp:1red to 'giYe the ·GoYcrnrnent. a square go ancl they say, " Go on and do tho b0st yon can, b1~t give us the 1noney a~ ~oon as :you pOS3ilJ]y can und wo will bo satisfied."

Mr. :YIAHER interjected.

Mr. GLEDSO~: The hon. member might haYo been told a different story, but my constituents haYo been continnally bolding n1ectinp;s and I know there are flOillP men 1Yho \vant the n1onev. There are sonw men who '' onld not care. what happened so long as thev g-ot their pound of flesh; but the bulk of the raihvavmen trmt the Govern­ment anrl belicYo 'that the;· will pay the rnonev back as soon as they poesibly can.

I spPak as ::t representative of the rail~Yay workers in the Ips-'i\-ich oloctorato. I bel1cve thflt, althoug-h the prpsent superannuation scherno haR "-to go. when things irnproYc arwther scheme >Yill bo started to enable every worker in the State to provide for old age. Th ,t will ho in the form of a national insurance Pcheme which will pro'.~irJe that cYory worker after rPaching a certain age in cv0ry industry, both State and pri­Yate. will be proYiclcd for. If that is clone it will mod a long~fclt want.

".\Ir. GRIMSTONE (Stanley) [2.58 p.m.]: The hor1. member for Ips~,,,ich made U''' of the statompnt that it was a crime for any Go.-ernmcnt or anv individual to take money under the preteHc8 of giving superann11ahoi1 benefits to anv incli.-idual and then tdling them later on. that the moncv is not. there. That is just >Yhat we on this ~iclc are charg­ing the Goyernmont with doing, but tlJC hon. member for lpsvviclr is endeavouring to twist it round and charge the Opposition with doing that-what a >Yondedul twist! \Y c listened this morning- to the speech of the Premier, who gave us a Vl'l'Y lengthy lecture i ntcrsperscd with numerous quotations and

Railu·ay Superannuation [5 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill.

lists of figures, the correctness of which is open to qu0stion. However, to use a fav­ourite expression of the Premier, " Be that as it may," the fiat has gone forth and the

superannuation scheme must go-and why? Ostensiblv because it is said to be insolvent. Let me -quote from the "Railway vVeekly Notice" of 2nd February, 1933-

SUPERANKUATION FUND ACCOUNT.

To Pension payments .. , Hdund to L•mploycc•s lcaYing thP

r;crYice et,-. ., Balance 'at 31st Dcce·I~bor, i932

£ 77,234

6.493 349,914

£433.641

This does not show insolvency. A railway­man came to me with this "Weekly Notice" showing the position of the fund, and said, " Mr. Grim stone. this fund is sa id to bo insolvent; can you explain to me why a fund showing balances like that can be insolvent?" To the ordinary railwayman, who is not an actl.[ary, it seems strnn~e that a fund should have £300,000 or £400.000 in it and yet be insolvent. It is only natural for such a man to ask, "Why cannot I get my money?" It is verv hard for a man who sees those figures and renwmbPrS the \Yeeklv Or fort­nightly deductions fro-n his pay 'to under­Btand where the money has gont>.

It seems t.o me that it. is not so much a question of the insolvency of the fund as it is a question of the fact that this scherne was introduced by a Government opposed to hon. members on the Government benches. 1t seems to me that they dare not allow good supporters like the railwal'men to benefit by legislation introduced b;, an anti-Labour ~\dministration. Consequent!,, it has to go. There may, of course, be another reason~that some unionists or union organisers feel, " \V c dare not allow these men to get the benefits of superannuation because the day may come when we may want to use our pet method of direct action and the men may be reluctant to go out on strike if thereby they jeopardised their superannua­tion benefits." I think that if we look at these aspects of the question more carefully we shall get the real reason whv this Bill is introduced. '

The only evidence the GoYernment have adduced in support of their Bill is the report of one actuar,', JY1r. Thodey. I am not ques­tioning his ability, but why was only one actuary asked to report? These 14,000 rail­waymen. the majority of them probably n1arriod. represent, I suppose, some\vhorc about 40.000 of our people, and where the welfare of so rnany of our citizens is involved it was the duty of the GoYernment to get as much information as they could, and make !he widest investigation possible. Again I Ld<, why was Mr. Thodey the only actuary a;,ked ·to report--was it because it was known that he was opposed to the scheme illld consequently his report would tend tD support what the Government YYishod to do?

AnDther point to remember is: It has been S'tid that Mr. 'l'hodcv in hi, report stated that he had not sufficient data in th informa­l ion sn bmittf•d to him. and that conse­quently he baser! his calcu'ations on Endid1 mortalitv tablPs. That may detract from the Yah1c of hie report m· it' may net. Hi' ;:;.tat-Pmrnt at ail.\' n:te show tlut he did 1:ot

1933-L

Bv Balance at 31st December, , Contributions

n GovPrnn10nt subsidy ., Trrasurv int''l'f st

TreasurY accrued intcre~L , Miscell~neous receipts

1931 £

237,233. 172.345 10,000 12.535 1.383

140

£433,641

consider that his information was sufficient. VVith a wider investigation as suggested, it mav have been found that the scheme was­ca);able of amendment, then in the interests of both the railwaymen and the State, an amendment of the scheme would have been preferable. The railwaymen have beeru deliberately thrown to the wolves b:v the supposed friends of the workers. Well may these workers and the workers of Queens­land generally cxclain1, " Save us from our frietods '" It is to be regretted that tlw Premier has allowed himself to be so blinded with party political spleen and prejudice as to perpetrate such a tragedy as tlns on the railwaymPn. Something like £500,000 belong­ing (o the raihYaymcn and collected from the railwaymen for a definite purpose is being definitely withheld. It is said the scheme is unsound. but to be unsound It must be due to either one of two things­the benefits must be too great or the contri­butions too ~mall. I do not think that any hon. member opposite will agree that such is the case, nor clo I think that any contri­butors to the scheme will concur in that belief. Therefore, we mu~t look further for the real reason why the scheme is being abol­ished. An endeavour was made to make capital out of the fact that tl1c- railwaYm<'ll. bv vote, turned down the original propo>al, bl.tt it is quite overlooked that a tn1mcndous an1ount of political propag'anda influcnct'd that ,-ote. If about 7.000 pub'ic Gcnants ran succ0ssfullv carrv on a supcratunu·~tion scheme then w'hv callnot double the nnmbcr of raihYav ronti·ibutors calT\. on a sa1isfac-tory schei:ne? ,

Mr. G. C. TAYLOR: It is on a d'ffen•nt basis.

Mr. GRIMSTONE: Thm, if so. whv not place this scheme on such a basis so that. 14.000 employees might benefit? This benefit has b<Oen denied the railwaymen for vea rs, and by hon. members opp.osite who, hav·­loudly proclaimed, "We will giYe you supt'r­annuation. ''

1\Ir. G. C. TAYLOR: Why did you not do i! .,

Mr. GRDiSTONE: We did; but you arc now abolishing it. Apropos of the public service ~cheme. if a vote had been taken on the qnPshon of introducing a suppranJJl' l­tion scheme intD the public service m:wy years ago I doubt Yery much whether it would haYF been in the affirrnat.ive. At that time I ju.st cLJmn '''ithin tht:' compul~ory- section; of r he la1v, and T do lwliPve that. like m·mv of 111•

young raihvac'men of to-day. I \nmlrl ha'-' pn-haps votc•cl against the introdurtio:t of thP superammation e.chcme to the public service

"11r. G rimstone.]

:290 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repwl Bill.

had I been given the opportunity. To-day, lllVBelf and n1a11y hundreds of public scrv­a,;ts bless the day that the scheme \Yas intro­duced. \Vo renlisc its benefits and we know l'cdectly well that a superannuation schenlP is e~<.,'iential. A public servant is now able to retire without anv dread of poverty in his declining days. ~l-Ion. mem~ hors opposite do not wieh to proyide the railv;ay,.lncn "'\vith a superannuation scheme. They have repeatedly procLtimed their pre­ference for national insurance. Frequently lwn. members haye held out the bait of rail­·way suverannuation. This subject is too big antl too important to be handled in a urclc>S manner and to be made a plaything of politics. There arc many aspects to be considered, but, summed up, the scheme shonld be retained in the intNests of the railwaymen antl the State. If there is any­thing wrong with the scheme. then the defects could be investigated so that the scheme n1ight be placed on a {inn baf'js.

There is the very reprehensible feature of the Bill embodying the refusal of the Go­vernment to repay the money collected from the men for a definite purpose. The Go­,·ernmcnt now say that the money is not 1 here. Admitting that what they say is correct, and admitting that the scheme was the gTC'i::ltL'St tragpdy it cvc~r could Le, huw can the UoYcrnmPnt justify their action in con­tinuing- to eollcct contributions aftpr they had decirlE'd to abolish the schen1c '? Thcv c~tnnot justif~, that. artion in any \Va~· wha.te,:cr. The Government knew perfectly well what their intentions were in regard to the scheme. They stfltcd on the hustings that the scheme '' ould bo inYestigated, and unless it was iound to be in a stronger position than they anticipated it IYOuld be repealed. Notwith­standing that declaration they proceeded to collect the contributions for twelYc months after thcy were returned to power. That was defiuitcly rollcction under fals'' prc­tcncPs. I do not know whctlH'r I a1n in ordel' m not. but I heard it stated in this Jiscus­sion that there are many men behind the bars to-cla v for acts less criminal than this , et ion of the Government. If, Mr. Speaker, I am transgrc"ing the rules of the debate I will haYe no hesitation in apologising. ThosE~ ·who know mo are aware that I have "" nry high conception of the duty of hon. nwrnbers, '111d the ideals we should live up to. I haYe no inclination at any time to transgress the rules of debitte or injure the high traditions of this Legislature, and if J am ruled out of order in making these remarks I will ha,Fe no hesitation \vhab:!v·~r ln t:qmlogising. If the GoYernrncnt ran be forgiYen fol" collecting contributions to the srhen1o before their decision to repeal it, nothing- which they may say can justify the ·collection of the contributions after that decision v1 a~ announced. \Vhcn that decision was announced it was further stated that no refund of moneys already paid were to be made. That is most reprehensible; yet hon. members opposite view this action of the Government passively anrl do not appear to worry. People outside the railway ser­,·ice a re deeply concerned at this action of the GoYernmC'nt, which has no justification whatcYer. :Many excuses have been g-iven ·on behalf of the Government for not refund­ing- the contrihutions collected. One is the good old political cry-blame the Moore ·Government. 'l'ho lVIoore Government have been blamed becal(se the money cannot be refunded. Wo have been told that the idea

[ Jfr. Grimstone.

of that GoYcnuncnt iu intrrJduc:ing thB ,chcnw was to reduce wages and use the funds for the purpose of paying off their deficits. \Yhat wonderful propagantlists arc such people ! In this cocncction I nm rc•mindcd of those lines credited to Abraham L:ncoln-

" You can fool all the people some of the time ; some of the people all the time; but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

lion. nwrnbers sitting behind the Govern­rrwnt will fend out the truth of those words when the occasion arises for them to go hdoro their masters. The action of the Go­YCmment in this connection may be likened to the issue of a forced loan on the railwav­rnon. It 1nust be ('Oinforting to the railw<:i:y nwn to know Hwv ·will rccciYc the princely rate of interest o{ 2~ per cent. on their accu­mnlatc..J funch amonuting to £400,000 and to know that this action 011 thPrtl ha:-' bC'C'n per­petrated hv tlwir own friends behind whom lhev haYC· cstoorl solidly for vears. The Act lays it down distinctly that ·the snperannua-1 ion funds must be vested in the Superannua­tion Board on behalf of the Treasurer, who was to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per ann•cm. How nice it must be for the raihvavmcn to know that the Government a re m~tking 2~ per cent. on their money ! h it anv wonder that thev an' very much disturbed at the action of their friends? The hon. member for Ipswich said that if this moneY were rcfuntled immediately those unfortunate vcorkors engaged in unemploy­ment relief work would be affected. because there would bo that much loss mono) in the Treaoury for their relief. It must be gratify­ing to railwaymen to realise that, in addi­tion to paying the unemplo:-cment rt•licf tax. they are also being called upon to make a forced loan to the Gon'rllment to keep the unemployed going. It wou!J be very difficult for hon. members opposite to justify their action on the hustings. V cry fevv arc endeavouring to justify the action of the CoYornmcnt Juring this debatP. Lut when tlw diYi>ion bells ring they will be found Yoting solidly behind their leader.

vVhilst I admire the hon. member for Ipswich. who represents a raih~, ay f'Onstitu­cncy, telling his constilnents why he adopts his present attitud0 I cannot forget that IYhen the diYision bells ring that hon. mem­ber and his colleaguPs will support a measure which robs the railwaymen of their money.

There seems great haste on the nart of the Government to pass this Bill. They have burked discussion. The "gag" was applied at the first reading stage and although this Bill was No. 4 on t.be business-slwl't to day it was de a it with first.

The PREMIER: It shonld haY<' been No. 1 on the business sheet. I stated on Thursday last that the measure would be dealt with to-day.

Mr. GRIMSTO::-JE: The Premier will admit that the Dill is not "et clown as l\'o. 1 on the business sheet to-day.

The PRE)IIER: That is not my fault.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the hon. member for Stanle\· to deal with the prin­ci pies of the Bill. •

Mr. GRIMSTO'\I"E: I am wondering whether the haste with which this Bill is being pushed through is to defeat the object of section 24 of the original Act, which pro­vides for an actuarial inv<'stigation of th~

Railu:ay Sttperannuarion [ 5 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 29!

funds on the 1st October, 1933. and for q uin­quenmal actuarial investigations thereafter. In other words, the board is authorised to report on the soun<lness of the fund. If this Bill WPre not being rushed through the board would be able to get busy on its inn'stigation on the bt October next-so one is lead to the conclusion that the Bill is being rushed through to prevent the investi­gation, because with the Jlassage of the Bill the board will be abolished. It would have been a more graceful act on the part of the Premier, even if he decided to abolish the schemf', to have waited until the 1st October and had the investigation by the board. If the board had brought in a report which indicated the insolvency of the fund, how much stronger would have been the hon. gentlf'man's po::;;ition and hov.; mu<'h rnorc would he have been able to trounce members of the Opposition? I think the hon. gentle­In an is making a great n1istake in hastening the JlH~sage of this legislation.

We have heard the uses to which thB indi­vidual contributions can be put. I refer to one direct;on-the utilisation of the con· tributions for payrncnt of insurance pre~ miums with the State Insurance Office. Next year the report of the State Insurance Corn· missioner will probably indicate a phe· nomenal gro·,,th in business; possibly that will be due to the utilisation of railwaymen's contributions in this direction. \Vhy not extend tlw same treatment to everv insurance office? I think the Premier should consider allowing the same condition to operate in the case of tb•e insurance cornpanies gener­ally, and not confine it to the State Insurance Office.

I intend to oppose the Bill because I con· sidcr it a distinct violation of justice. The hon. member for \Vest Moreton has empha· sised that justice should come before generosity and he pointed out where money could be got to refund the money to the railwaymen. He also ]JOinted ont that jus· tice should come before generosity. They have introduced a 44-honr week. the cJst of which in two years would hayo pro­vided ample funds to repay the railwaymen. I regard the present Bill as a distinct viola­tion o£ justice and an act of treachery to railwaymen.

Mr. G. C. TAYLOR (l,'noyucm) [3.23 p.m.]: I have listened to a lot of argument from hon. members opposite and have noticed the release of a lot of crocodile tears that have flowed out of sympathy to th,l rail. waymen. During their three years in office the Moore Government did not at anv time demonstrate that they were the friends of any worker in Queensland, much less the railway worker. That Government foisted upon the railwaymen a scheme which had be~n rejected at a ballot. If hon. members opposite desired to assist railwavmen to eo'11cthing that would give them "in their old age a security against distrc<;;s, one could quite understand them putting up an argu. rnont such as they put up to-dav; but one has only to take notice of the' psychology that permeates the party opposite to know that they have no intention and never had any intention of giving the railwaymen any· thing of any benefit. There are onlv two points to my mind that are debatable in connection with this Bill; one is as to whether the railwavmen want the fund abolished or not, and' the other the question as to how the money can bo repaid to the

railwavmen who have contribute-d in tho sha]JC "of percentage payments to the fund. It i6 quite obvious that the starting of a superannuation fund in a tirne of depression was a job which was too big for the mern­lwrs of the 1\Ioore Government-to force upon the railwayn1en a supe1·annuntion scheme \Yhen a cleprc,sion \Yas hitting th<• country. It was something that has brought th<'m into the position they arc in to-clay of having to pay a\Yay their assets. That is the positjon we are in, and explains why thL'Y are making such a \Yondcrful effort to pro'vo the stability of a fund which has been found insoh·cnt bv eYerv actuarv who has handled the question. It ~vas aclmrttod by tlw Px-Socretar for Railwavs that the fund was umotlll.cl. The point that has been ham· mered in by the members of tho Opposition is that if at the end of three years an actuarial im·estigation proved that 'the fuwl was unsound and \\'as ~ikPlv to conti11u~' unstable, theY would review the position and an1cnd the sc.hmne. ThPv arc i11 the positiLn of a man in business who finds himself o·1 entering on a certain course of being in the position to amend his business proposi· tion by increasing his price lon:ls and decreasing the quality of his stock. He can then certainly make the businc•s a ]Jaymg proposition. The ex-Secretary for Railways. the hon. member for Mnrilla, made the state­ment that if at the end of a certain period the fund was shown to be in an unstable condition the ::\foorc Goven11nent would anwnd it b,, increasing the payments to the fund and -decreasing the amount of benefit pavable to the worker when it became his lot' to retire on his pension. There is no, question that tlmt point has been hammered at by every hon. nwmber O]lposite-that t!H• onlv way to make th<l fund stable would he· by 'that means, or else a'locato so much of the ]Jublic revenue towards the fund so a; to make it stable. If it was the intention of tho l\1oore Government to prm·ide th· railway workers with a stable supcl·annna­tion fund, why did they not at the oub<'t state the amount which would have to be allocated from the revenue of the countrY generally, and say straight out that it woul~1 cost in the vicinity of £175,000 a year to make the fund stable? Instead of that they tinkered with the position and got their fingers burnt. ThPy paid £10.000 per annum tmYards the fund, and it has got into the position in which Mr. Thodey showed it to· be when he made his investigations. \Ve know that the first proposition which faced the 1\Ioore Government when they took ovet· the reins of office was the question of getting wages reduced. The railway superannuation scheme was ono of the methods used bv the Moore Government to bring about the ,:educ· tion of the wages of railwaymen.

Mr. KEllNY: What a foolish argument:

1\lr. G. C. TAYLOR: One has only tc inquire into the question of the proposed 10 per cent. reduction in real wages which was intended to be given effect to by the­Mooro Government had thev been returned to power at the last electi;ns to ,3ee that. That would have been the effect of that reduction in its application to tbe railway service and the amount contributed to tlw superannuation fun·d. Where would the fund then have been? It was quite evident that the Government of the day had a scheme Jlr<'~ pared based upon the 10 per cent. reduction' to take place if they were returned to poweL

Mr. G. C. Taylor.]

:2!}2 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

\Ve find hon. members opposite attempting to Jnstdy the cxrstonco of a fund which WU-<

brought in as a rncans of participat·ing in the gTPat vvage reduction ~chcrnc propo~cd b:v the J'lloore GoYermnent.

The workers of Quoenshll1cl do not desire -;;upcrannuation schemes of this kind because d the fact that the objectiYc of this party Is the £oc1ahsahon of Industry. lion. nlcnl­bcrf' opposite had }Jotter g-et that into the back of their IJonncts-that the \YDrkers in the railw~y H'rYicc ~nd in Queensland gener­ally rcqmre somcthmg more than this class

·Of superan11uation fund. Our fti<'nd~ know that. and that is ono of the rod herrings that were drawn acro,s the trail by the ::\ioore Goyernment to enable them b achicye their objcctin. It is obYious that the Moore GoYcrnrnent "got a~"";ay" ,vith their scheme and forced it on the railwannl'n and I YPnturc to Ray that to-dav they \vonld not get a majority in faYonr of h. ·

An 0PPOSITIOX :\lniBER: \Yh ,. not give them a vote? ·

:\1r. G. C. Tc'l. YLOR: It would be no they have already YOted on it.

An 0PPOSITIOK ME}JBER: The,· may changed their miuds. ·

use-

have

:Mr. G. C. T ,\ YLOR : Th<'Y are concerned to Q'et hack the 5 per c0nt. on their real \\·age, and this Bill gives it to thcn1. Thev have a 44-hour \veek which, coupled with th;, return of the 5 per cent. supel'annnation payment taken from them bv the Moore Ci-oYernment has giYen then~ !'.Ome real benefit~. It is not a supcntnnnatio11 sehcmc that tncy al'o conePrned about FO n1uch as getting; back the cash they ha •·e paid into it­and rrghtl-\ so: Ewry member of tlw Opposi­tw.n woula hko to know whether lw was go;ng to get back mon<'y he had paid. The rarlwaymen are pleased to !mow that the Governn1cnt arc aLolishing the schcn1c and they arc only concerned because the cash is !JOt available for them, bN·auso thP :\Ioore GuYernment did not provide funds from which. to repay. The Governrnent have no mtentron of refusing to pay the railwaymen then· money, as has been declared bv hon. members opposite. Tho l'r·emier has alread,­il;tim~tecl that so coon as the money is avaif­aolo rt wrll be pard, and hon. members ?ppositc are only tr,·ing to side-track the JS>ue b:v saying that the GoYernment do not intend to r0turn the money.

An OPPOSITION MEiiJBER: The Dill says so.

:Ylr. G. C. TA YLOR: It does not. It says that whencYer the finarrces of the State arc in a position to enable tho payments to the radwaymcn to be made, they will be made. After all, the raih1 aym<~n do' not enjoy posi­tions such as those of hon. rnen1bers oppo·,.ite. In those days they require the cash, but thev arc honest enough to appreciate the fact tha't had the su1wranunation srherne bet-m allowed to continue, as desired bY the :\Ioore Govorn­meut, they would in a· few years be faced with the necessity of losing their contribu­llons and the benefits on rl'tin'ment for which lhey had paid.

The question arises as to whether the rail­waymen are our friends. or the friends of hon. members opposite. as the latter would have us belieYe. I haYo quite a number of raih1aymen in my electorate and I haYe not heard an:v objection to the rqwal of this Act by the Government. The only "hjection I haYe heard came fro1n the prPsidcut of the

fJir. CJ. C. 'l'aylor·.

Australian Federated lTnion of Locomotive EnginP Drivers, who objected to the Govern­rnPnt not paying baek tho colliributions of the railwaymen straight away, but I beJioye that the time will shortlv come when the Go...-,-ernrnent will return t.; the raihv:tyn1cn the cash that was filched from tht'm bv tlw l\Ioore GoYernment bv means of O!le of the rottcne~t superanr~uation schpn1r.:; ever iutroduced.. I do not bclieYP in su;JE'rannua­tion schemPs of this kind. The only thing that can be done to assist the workers of Australia, ·cf QuceJJsland in particular. in this wa~- is a uational ii1surancc schmne that \vi]\ benefit CYery worker in industry.

:Mr. WIENHOLT (Fassifun) [3.35 p.m.]: [ never liked the principal Act itself, bnt it seems to me that the alternative offered l2y the Pr('mi: r may be worse still. The pro­[Joml to rqwal the Act is open to several objections. OnP is that within the course of thP next hYcln: YC'ars or rnore \VC will hase to pay something iikc £1.000.000, if not more, to superanr~uatcd railwaynH'n \Yho have con­tributed. and another objection-which I disappron> strenuously--is that by means of this Dill we arp pra.ctica lly aclvertising to everybody-to the world at largo-that Queeusland is insolvent, and insolycnt, too, in a rnost. 11nplcasant \vay. It \vill ho parti­cularly bacl if we giYe that impresoion. Naturallv, the Premier. as head of a Labour Gon=·rnn{ent~ would dislike having to rcta.iu <'mployees' contributio11s. Should we commit our~elvos in this verv serious rnanner or shonJcJ We giYe the matter more thonght? I belieYe that the late GoYcrnment were in too much of a hurry in introducing this scheme, bnt I ask hon. members opposite is it not also possible that the Premier and his G·wernment are in too much of a hurry to repeal it? Are '"e not going to pay too much by this repeal? To mo it is something like a patient seriously sick and upon "hom an operation is probably necessary. With an operation that is yery serious and one that has far-reaching effect~, it is often necessary to call in an outsicle opinion before commiting oneself to an operation, the opera­tion in this case being the Bill to repeal the- schcrne. ""...-c do not quite know what is ahead of the Queensland railways, and I did not agree with the hon. member for ]\farce when he said that there was no connection bPtween \Yool prices and the Hail­way Superannuation Ad.

i\lr. \Y. T. KrxG : I meant. that for the pnn)o::::es of cornparison, there ·was no analogy.

2\Ir. \VIE:\I'HOLT: In my opinion a super­annuation scheme depends a great deal upon th" prosperity of the railways. and the pros­perity of the railways has an immense effect upon the railwaymen themselves. If we can < lJt a in an irnprovcmcnt in our railway bn~ino~s "\YC can reduce the pooling and the rationing of the men. They would be able to share in the new business that \\e hope may come in the form of better' wag-e~. That- SE'f'll1S to be the rca;::ona.blc 1vay

of looking at the matter, but how are WC'

to obtain thio better raihvav busino.;s and prosperity upon \Yhich the son~dness of a ruil­way superannuation scheme must depend? Obviously, it must come at least in the one direction that I haYe advocated for quite a long while-the removal of the railways from political interference and control.

I propose to moYe an amendment to allow this House to obtain further actuarial n'porl:.,

llailway Superannuation [ 5 SEPTEMBER.] Acts Repeal Bill. 293

on the soundness or otherwise of the scheme, because I believe that the weakness of both the Act relating to the introduction of the scheme and this Bill now baYing reference to its repeal is that they were not based upon sufficient independent actuarial infonnation. I am not making any invidious distinction. I know that the Premier is faced with diffi­culties, and would still be faced with difficul­ties oven if this amendment were carried. But I do think we should obtain further actuarial reports from separate and inde­pendent sources. They would immensely strengthen the hands of the Premier and his party in the future. If he too hastily repeah the Act now, just look what mioht be the accusations in the future-'· 'V er~ vou in a huny when you repealed the Act," ''Did you think it right to load us with £1,000,000."' "vVhy did you allow that unpleasant feeling abroad about the extraordinary precarious position of your Governrn(1 nt financiallv ?" It might be. said that if thev had held off for a year or so the position ~rnight have been mended and the State might have boon saYed a grca.t de tl of money dnring a period of depression. It may be that the additional reports will utterly condemn the scheme and ""Y that it is beyond amcnclrncnt. If so, well and good. The Government will then have a clear sheet. I die! not vote for the original Act and I do not like the Repeal Bill. So I think we would be wise in ohtain­ing further independent reports. Accord­ingly, I ll10Ye-

" Omit the word­' now'

and insert after the words ' a second time' the words-

' onlv after two independent and separate actuarial reports on the Rail­way Superannuation Act have been obtained and presented to the House.' "

The motion would then read-" That the Bill be read a second time

only after two independent and separate actuarial reports on the Railway Super­annnation Act have been obtained and presented to the House."

Mr. KEXNY (Cook) [3.42 p.m.] : I second the amendment. There is a great rush on the part of the Government to repeal this Act. I haYO listened attontivG!}- to speakers on the Government benches endeavouring to justify the stand of their GoYernmcnt, They havo givr•n a variety of views. I am pleased to sec Gon~rnruont rr1ernbera. conYertcd on the question of handling public finance. For years they v>ere not concerned abon_~ ·;:hi~ question, but to-day they are 1JC•rturbe.d. Thev beli('YP that no section of the com­muri"ity should receive anv benefit at the expense of the re"st of thP CO!l1IIlHHity. Quite a. mre thought, but a definite change in thought and attitude. In this connection I am reminded of the varimts benefits given by the Gm-ernmcnt to particular sections of the comrnunitv at the expense of the whole. W<' have only to refer to the period when t hP GoYcn1n1rnt Vl<)re in po\ver prcYiously when thr'y lost £5,000.000 in their fetish to {'Siablish State entPrprisos. To-clay we havn a 44-hour \YCPk again being introduc_•d for the benefit of a section. a i the expeme of the rest of the community and the public pul'se. \Ye haYe a police superannuation scheme being fostered and £60.000 being pro­,·ided at the expense of the rest of tho -comrnunii.v. But because the railwayn1011 haYc hal a superannuation scherne g·iveu

to them by the }foore Government we are told it must be repealed because it has been provided at the expense of the rest of the COillffiUnity !

Mr. GAm: It was foisted on them.

Mr. KENNY: The scheme was given to the railwavmcn in their own intcrrsts. To.day the" Government are changing their tunr. \Vhen the scheme was introduced they declared it was against the interests of the individual, but to-drry they claim it is against the interests of the rest of the com­munitv. Hon. nwmbcrs opposite also toll us tha"t the pay env0lope of the railwrcymen will be increaoed because thev are not now contributing to the scheme. - Did we ever hear such an argument previously?

Mr. G.\IR: They aro sati.3fiod.

Mr. KEN:-JY: Hon. momherc; mav as well argue that tho placing of railwayrue~l on ono feed a drty will increase their standard of liYing because they will get a greater amount in their pay envelopes. vYhat a great argu­m,nt! The hon. member for Enoggera gave still another reason. Ho said that he wrtnted to get it right into the back of our heads that the Labour objective is socialisation of industry, and that this scheme was merely a red herring in order to divert the attcution of railwaymen from the objective. That is a very poor argument b cause the Govern­ment have power to bring about that objec­tive to-day. The Gm·ernment stated repeatedly that they would repeal this scheme when they attained power. They knew that the union organisers did not desire a superannuation scheme in the rail­way service because it would prevent them putting the etriko machine into operation. Railwaymen \\ant the scheme but the Govern­ment say that they arc satisfied and are con­tent to wait the gcod time of the Government for the return of their money, believing that the Govcrmnont will do tho right thing. If the GovornmPnt are EO catisticd that the railwayn1c11 arc behind thern, "\Yhy not t.akr~ a ballot as to v·lwther they desire the ropPal of this ~eh erne or not. and 'a3 to 1vhether thcv desire their money 'to br rPturncd or Ilt 1t o.;?

If that is done. th"en I w:Il he content. Tbo Government are not courPrned about that pha,c of the qu(•stion. EvidPntly, as thP h:m. men1hcr for _Enot_'"gfTa stated, thPy are con­corned with the Labour objective.

I do not propose to argue whether the actuary's report is right or \VI'ong nor whether the scheme is aduarially sound or not; but the amendment mm·ed bv the hon. member for Fassifern will gi \'P l~arlia:nent the opportunity of a check on ;'\1r. Thodey',; report and will enable us to sec whether the sclwmc can be amended or not. I believe that railwaymen are cntitlcr1 to superannua­tion. 'l'hcy comprise a section of GoYernn1cnt cnlploycf-:s who arc to-day not enjoying fiuperannuation. J-lon. rncrnbers on the Government benches have tried to argue that the ,;latcmcnt of the Leaclcl' of thr lato Gcn·t·nrnPnt \vhon he• e ·id that the'l' public Sf'rVallts who haYP n~adH d thf:-~ agL' of sixty-fiyc years and who still rctaiJWr! thP whole of their faculties would be continued in employment until seventy years of age. apr1ljed also to raihva:_vrnen. ~othing \Yas

said about the railwa.v serYice, and Govern­ment rncnrbers are ,;rong 1vhon they state that the late Govemment promised that every railwayman would be employed until he was ~cventy years of age. That was never said a.nd never intended.

Mr. J( enny.]

294 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bill.

The hon. member for ::Yiurilla has told the House that the saving to the Queensland Goyernrnent by a certain number of railway­men going out on pension wr" £140 000 ·a year. \V c do 11ot know \dwthor tha't \Ht'

taken into con~idcratioll l,v :3Ir. Thodo\- vvhcn he rnacle hjs report. If 'this runendrtlent is carried Parliament "-ill have that informa­tion before it.

After making up their mimls to rep,al the Act, the presc11t Govcr11ment allowed further men to go out on a supcranuuation pu vn1cnt and that statp of affa-!rs exi~tcd un 't(J th~ 30th June last. That was a lwncfit 'to a few individuals at tLE' expense of the rest of the cornn1unity. t~ndr'r those circu1n~tances whf'i'e js the justifiration fo1· Hw con(_h~rnna­tion levelled at tJJLo late Government?

The Premier has stated that the Govern­ment will re]lay ihe amount duo io mihYav­mrn when funds are [1\'ailablc. \Yho will l;o the judge of ",,-hen fnud:3 are aYa.i!ablc": [, thn Premier to be the judge or is this Hou.e to be the J udgc? l maintain that t.he funds arc ~vailable to-day to repay thn rr~oney. lt IS use}cc:,s f-::r the Premier and hh follov,:ers to argue that the Jloure GoYcrn­rncnt spent this money before they went out of oflir·<'. \Yhcn the proocnt Go\·ernment took offi~" the c-a~h balancr>s amounted to £1.023.803. The " Go,·ernmcnt Gazette" for <>ach succeeding mcnth shows the state of the cash balances. The PrPinicr had alco £1.000,0JO short-srent last year, and the hon. gentlernan l''\_plainccl that that was in respcr•t ~f works winch could not be cornploi<'d last hnauc:al ;-l'ar. The n1one:v was t.hPn' and could han: been utilisr'd for the time bcing. ThB Pr('nlHT al"o stated that his Uovernrnent proposed to spend £3.300.000 of loan money this year. That amount, together with the £1.000.000 short-spent last year, makes avail­able £333,000 to bo spent each month, but mstead of £333,000 being made available eve~·:v month to relieve the unemployment posrbon the presE·nt Gmernment have onlv spent £117,000 per month for the two rnonth~s of this financial year. H that is so. thoro is a ::'a Ying in those tv,·o rnontii5 of over £232.000. Going on in that wa,- it is verv easy to pa.y tho raih.-Ya:Tnen their rr1one~7 because the uncmploye'l fl re not g-rtting their money to-day. Those ]Jublic "·orl..-:s \VC ht'ar about arc not going on. and ,,·hat js tho n'ason? ThP Premif'l' w;l! not tell tlw House ,,·hy I:c is n?t spending- the rncml'y which he says IS a nttlab1f~ for uncml1loy n0nt. The unemplovod will be penalic,nrl. The monev is there. WP find that this fund has £385:ooo t,) its credit. I ask tlw Frrm icr whv it is necPssary to include a clau~~c in the Bill to ;~tify the transfer of, this money to the lreasury Jf the moncv rs not tl'N~'. \Yhv is it nec0osary to h"Ye 'a clans" in the Bill to provide that the pensiom of the railwav employees shall be paid out cf this fund which is transferred to the Treas"rv?

\Ve want to know the position so far as this payment is concerned. \Vhcn the Bureau of Economics and Stat.istico, Bill was going through the Chamber, we on this side tried to stop the Premier taking money from trust funds. We tried to stop him from taking tlus money from the ra!l wa;v superannuation scheme. I moved an amendment at the time in speaking on which I stated vide parr~ 1792 of " Hansard" for las.t y~ar- "

" That paragraph giYes the Govern­ment the opportunity of taking money out of any trust fund. We know what

r il11'. Kenny.

trust funds we have, and we know the effect on those funds if that provision is carried to its logical conclusion. The ·workers' chvellings fund is in credit £66.000, and the GovPmment will be• able to take rnonc•y from that fund. The rail­·way superall;llration fuud is jn credit £294,000, and the Government can take money frorr1 thaL fuuJ.))

\7\~e lTIO\~ccl au alllf'lldn1f'JJt to stop tlH:- Uo­YcrnnH~nt taking t1w 1norwy frorn the railway "upcranncmt.ion fund for that purpose. The I'rolllicr on ! !Ltt occac ion said that he could not take thctt mOIH'Y· If ho could not, what a~out his argurncnt that the money is spent? \V hero is the money? The Premier, when speaking at the tirne, vide " IIansard " of last year, page 1795, said-

" Trust funds arc called into being for a special purpose, usual! v under ;., statuto. i:-Jo long as the trust frmd remains and tlJO statuto is in operation, the fund can only be used for the qlCcific purpose. If a Treasurer transfers money from a trust fund for another puepose, he must obtain the authoritv of Parlia­ment. There is no power, either implied or direct, in this clause that would give thG G ovornment or the bureau any authority to attack existing trust fcmds. T}Je rnain roads fund, for exaruple, is a tl"ust fund which has accumulated a cer­tain surplus. That remained in the trust fund until such time as Parliament passed a Bill authorising the Treasurer of Quconslancl to transfer a portion of that fund to general reYcnue. Before anv­thing of that nature was done, a Bill was brought down, and parliamentary authority obtained."

If parliamentary authoritv was necessary before this monev could be transferred or do.~lt with, whv t~he necessitv to-dav for the Premier saying the money. is not there­that they have not got the money to pay? This Bill, however, is providing the machinery to transfer that money from the superannuation fund to the Treasury. Then when it is transferred we find it is ear­marked to pay the pensions that arc becoming due to the railwavmou who have gone out on pensions. \Vhi'le that fund is paying these pensions of tho railwavm"n the Premier is condemning the late Go-vcm­ment saying that it is going to be au added burden on the Government of £80,GOO a yrnr. It is no such thing·. Th·' preocnt Government are not going to feel any burden at all. because the money is being paid from this fund which is in credit £380,000. The Premier and the Government are putting the onus on future Governments. \Vheu that fuud has boon wiped out future Governments will have to find the money from the conso1iclatod revenue or frorn iu:q1~. ThPre is no argument so far as the Front iPr is concerned for holding this monev in h,md and not repaying it to the railway emplo}<""' I have shown quite ckfinitelv that w:thin th,· last few months thev haYc not >oent [,,­£100,000 a month the ~amount which ·is a vaii­able for relief of unemployment ancl other purpmes. They have not spent £1.C00,000 they had available last year. If there is no need to spend this money there is no need to keep it, and it can be repaid to the railwavmen. There is another clause in the Bill which needs analvsis. While the machinery is placed there, for discrimination between different sections of railway employee.; thoro is a clause under which tlw

R:lilway Superannuation [ 5 SEPTEliiBER.] Acts Repenl lii/1. 295

·Cabinet can discriminate between individuals in the rail w.ay service. Provision is made whereby any individual can be granted his money from the superannuation scheme. I say quite dc!initely that i( any individual can get thf' n1011ey, cYery uHtn should be able to get his money. That clause giws the Governor in Council pm1·er to give to an individual the money due to him from that fund. The clause does not take into con­sideration the other clauses dealing with these men who have borrowed monev frorn the i:lhtc Advances Corpontion or the men "ho have insurances with the State Insur­:tncP Departnwnt. That is a separate clause which gives the opportunity to the Govern­ment to favour their political friends who are getting a bit obstreperous before elec­tion time. They say " All right, there will bo particu1ar citcurnstanres ~urrounding, wo will pa-' you your money and you "·ill keep us elected." Is that the rcawn? vVe have hoard no hon. member opposite suggest any reason for that provision. I object to the Government discriminating between men who l1avc had ach·ances from the State Advances Corporation and similar Government institu­tions and men who have obligations to pri­va to companies or individuals. The former are to be relieved of their responsibilities and the burdens thrust upon them by hard times, but the latter are asked to earn- that bu rdcn thomseh·es. ·

The hon. member for Ipswich said that tnany railwayrnen were in YPry poor cir­.cnmstancos. \Ve know quitA we;l that as a result of the pooling of work manv of them are not earning as much as rclirf workerR. or at any rato not mnch n1ore. -Cuder Ruch circutustancP=-' thl'V Jc~ervc to !·:-.ve their money repaid to ihem. notwithstanding ·che argument of the Premier that it i' required for the relief of the uncmploved. That argument will not hold water bec&uso all the mH~mployed relief funds are not being spent.

I have heard hon. members opposite say ihat the raih, aymcn do not want their money. The hon. member for South Brie­barw interjected, " \Vhat about the mass meeting that \Vas called?" It was not held because raihvavn1en know the intimidation that is practiseJ, just as a man named Scott was transfPrred from Hughenden to Cairns and from Cairns to Almaden because of his political opinions.

!1Ir. SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. 1nembcr for Cook connect his ren1arks with the question bdow the House?

l\1r. KEN','Y: Yes; I am pointing out that the railwaymen endeavour bv means of a public mcdino- to express their opinions an~ make the Gov<'rnment give tlwm back tholl' money, but they are afraid because of the intimidation practised by the Govern­ment. The whole of the railway service, the whole of the public service is terrorised. If the Government have confidence that the milwaymen are behind them, let them have a vote as to whether those men want the n1oney back or not.

I do not wish to prolong the debate because l feel sure that with all the sympathv which lion. members opposite feel for the railway­men they arc not anxious to see them enjoy­mg the benefit,, of a sound scheme which will protect them in their ocd age. No argu­ment can be adduced against the amendment and I expect the Premier to rice and sav: " I believe in superannuation. Railway­men should have a scheme just as much as

anv other :;;ection of the public sorvic2, and thi's Government and the party lwhind them will accept the a.noadnwnt and put into operation a scheme that will stand for all tirrw."

At 4.5 p.m., Mr. O'KEEFE (Cairn.<), one of the panel of

TPn1porary Cha1nnen, relieved }rlr. SrEAKER in the chair.

The PREliifER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Jiackay): I have no intention of accepting the anlcnchnent. rrhc proposal is one ihat cannot bf~ seriou:"ly entertained by anyone that has taken the trouble to study the finances of the raihYay f'upcrannuatiou scheme. It means that, two additional inde­pendent actuaries bo asked to report further on the '!cheme. There is an inference there that Mr. Thoday, tlw actuary \Vho has already dealt with tho matter full;,· aml fttitbfully, is not independent. I n~sPnt such a sugg{'tl~ tion coming from the hon. member for Fa:;;-;iforn or anyone else.

\Vhat purpo~e could an actuary of the ,,tanding of J\Ir. Thodey lul\·e other than to make an independent and fair report upon his investigations'? The reputation of an actuary is his real stock-in-trade. \Vithout a reputation for independence and complete nrobity no actuary could continue in bnsinc ,s. To ll-Sc tho word " independent" is to suggest that no independent innstigation has yet been made. Mr. Thodey is not the only indi­vidual who has investigated the scheme. It was in vc'3tigated an-cl reported upon b;y tho Railway Superannuation InYe~tigation Board. Had that board's advicp and warnings been accepted by the then Minister the Act would have been much better and the fund would haYc been in a much more solvent condition. The GO\·ernment of the day proceeded with a scheme not only in defiance of the ad!'ice of Mr. Thodey, the actuary, but also agamst the expressed opinion given to the Minister by the board appointed by him. Reports have been obtained from other sources. The State Govcrnrnent Insurance Comrnissioner and his actuary, ~f1·. Grcaly, prepared a Yer.v full report for the Government. 'They investi­gated a proposal to amend the scheme, but that was shown to be entirely impracticable because it would impose too great a charge upon the State. After reading the report of the actuary in the press 1VIr. Brigden, Direc­tor of the Bureau of Economics and 8tatisticc, said to me, " Surely the fnnd could not be as bad as all that." I said, "If you think that yoq can provide any information about it I shall be very glad if you would go into the matter and give the Government the benefit of your advice and your candid opinion." After the papers had been placed at his disposal he sent me a note indicating that the onlv advice he could tender was that the Government should bring the schPmc to an end as early as possible. In addition, one of the insurance companies sugg-ested that it should look into the matter with a view to taking over the liabilities of the fund nn certain conditions to be stipu­lated. The company inve,tigatcd the posi­tion, but the suggestion made to place the scheme in a solvent condition was outside the scope of practicabilitv because it involved too heavv a charge on consolidated revenue and too heavy a. charge on the railwaymen them­selves.

I have never argued, nor do I argue now, that superannuation is impossible; but a superannuation scheme must be based on the

Hon. W. Forgan .Smith.]

296 Railway Supemnnua:ion [ASSEMI3L Y.]

nropcr proportion of contributions to bene­fits and the rates must be fixed according to age. One does not require to be a pro­fessional actuarv to realise that. All insur­ance proposals rrmst be based upon a proper proportion of contributions to benefits and the premiums chRrgeable must be based upon ago. 2\lr. Thodey pointed out in his report that the scheme was sound only in its application to those cmployc•'s in the Rail­\Vay Departruent up to hventy-soven years of age, because more than 55 per cent. of the railwaymen were over thirty-five years of age. That showed the instability of the whole scheme at its inception. The scheme is one that can be studied and understood by the ordinary individual. :'!1r. Thodey has pointed out that to carrv on the fund on its existing basis would rcqu,ire a substantial sub­sidy b.v the GO\·ernmcnt. I have already referred to the amounts. It has also been mentioned that an unsubsidised scheme would require a charge of 12~ per cont. on the wages of the railwitymcn. \Yho is going to the rail­waymen asking them to accept a scheme of superannuation involving n charge on their

rate of wages of 12~ per cent.? The fund based on existing contributions canr:ot afford te pay rnorc than £44 a year as a n1axi1nun1. I will give hon. lrlcrnbcrs son1c figures conl­poundod which . they can understand for thc1nscl \~es. No ono rcqqires to be an actuary to realise the significance of the figures. I rt'peat that the real test of sound assurance is the fixation of ra t"s in proportion to the hrnciits. and all rates should be fixed on t h<' basis of the age of the assured person. Obviously it would cost me more to get an Cl~dcnnncnt assuntnce now fron1 the Aus­tralian Mutual Provident Society or State Government Insurance Department than if l made application when I was twenty years younger. All insurance rates ascend as a pe~·­:;on increases in a~e. In the cour5~ of thrs debate hon. members have referred to the amount that the superannuation fund would reach taking into regard ann11al interest compounded over a period. The Leader ef t ht' Opposition reiterated that quite fre­quently in the course of his remarks on the illitiatory stage of the Bill. I have taken out the following table:-

Period for which contribution

paid

Amount which an annnal contribution of £10 (being 5 per cent. on an average salary on £200) if compounded at 5 ver cent. per

annum calculated on quarterly rests would

Amount, as per schedule to Railway Surerunnuation Act, which contributor would be entitled to draw en retirement at age 65, based on 12 years' expectanc

amount to at age 65. of life. I I-·-----------! Amount, paid lJY

contributor. Contribution plus

accumulated interest. Annual Pension. Total for 12 years.

20 years 25 VC1-ll'S 30 5·ears 35 years

£ 200 250 300 3jQ

£ 340 493 688 939

Is there an assurance company in the world that could carry on a. business of that kind and remain solvent? That is the position. I could give hon. members further figures worked out on the sanw basis, but they are suHicient for any individual applying himself to the problem to see that the scheme itself is hopelessly insoh·cnt. If it \\'ere " nrivatc company there would be nothing else but for it to go into liquidation. If it went into liquidation it would only be able to pay Ss. in the £. That is the financial position of the railway superannl!ation scheme. By repealing the scheme at this juncture we are preserving the contract to all those retired bona fide undor the ~chU11t'. nud \Yt.:! aro preserving to the men in the service who contributed to the fund the full amount they contributed. That is the positon. VVe are preserving all individual rights and bringing the scheme to an end at as early a date as possible. If it wore possible to place it on a solvent basis without making an undue charge either on the State or individual railwaymen, what motive would I have for net doing so 9 Obviouslv as Treasurer the winding-Up of tho schornu "'~nd the annual'coru­rnii JllC>llt~ \Yl-Jirh ,,.j]1 be on t L0 S.htt(' l~ not a pleasant function. If it could be con­tinued on a reasonable !Ja,is, oe if contribu­tions could be returned and the whele echPmc conlcl lw promptlv finalised. I would be very foolish not to do so. There is no question of the Government beino- in a hurry. The hon. member for Fassi'fcrn said tl1at the Moore Government were in a

[!Ion. T\'. Forgan Smith.

£ 125 HO 155 170

I ___ _

I

)

!

£ 1,500 Lti80 1,860 2,040

hurry and acted foolishly when they brought in the Bill. He suggested that possibly we are acting hurriedly. We are not acting hurrie-dly in the matter at all. E,-ery phase of the question that could be investigated has been investigated. Every avenue has been explored with a view to meeting the situation in the best possible way, and I am '" tisfied that I weuld be recreant to my responsibilities as Treasljrer of this State if I allowed the scheme to continue a moment longer than is necessary. That is the reason y.·hv the Bill has been introduced. The fig{;rcs I have just gi·.-en show that the con­tributions to the fund under the most favour­able conditions, extending over a period up to thirty-five years, are out of all proportion to the b<mcfits a.-ailablc. That, in itself. is a suflicicnt answer to the amendment. In addition t<J 1\lr. Thodey, full investigation has befm made by men competent in this ciass of work, and to accept the amendment would simply be to delay matters without anv cornpensat.ing -advantage. It would mdreh- mean a further duplication ef reports and information already available. For those reasons I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Mr. ::\:IOORE (.lubiun.·l) [ 4.20 JJ.rn.! : I regret the Premier has :;;.ccn fit to turn down the amendment.

The PHE}!IER: \Yhv didn't YOU accq>t uur ~mcndmcnt ·wh('n :vm; brought. in the legis] a­t ion in the first plac0?

Rui'·Y~'J Superannuation [ 5 SEPTEMBER.) Acts Repeal Bill. 297

c\1r :\100RE: I could give a number 0f n•<cson- but I do not propose to go into that matter at the preocnt tirn<e.

The l'remier seemed to be quite indignant that there should be a rr·quest for an inde­pendent report. I am not suggPsting that :Mr. Thodev is not independent, but I desire to kr';ow on what basis he made his report, as the very figures which Mr. Thodey has given to the Premier and which the Pre­mier has quoted lead one to believe that Mr. ThodPy rnadc his iuvestigation fron1 some oxtraordinary point of vie,v. The Pre­mier has stated that £286,000 a year for thirty years would have to be paid into the fund to make it solvent--

The PREl\IIEH: Don't you see the reawn for that? The longer the scheme is in existence the greater the charge upon the fund.

l\fr. MOO RE: Of course I sec the reason for it, but the Premier has pmctic.tlly admitt<•d that the contributions of the rail­waymen over that period would be sufficient to tneet. the obligations that were incurred; consequently the £286,000 per year for thirty _years would be really an accretion of capi­tal. When the statement was being made by the hon. member for Kennedy about the £286,000 a year, at compound interest, the Premier interjected, "But you don't expect the Govertmwnt to pay interest on their own contribution.''

The PEE:IIER : \Vould you? Mr. :\IOORE: Yes. The PRDm-:n: Do vou mean to say that

the State ,,-ould be' justified in finding £286,000 a _)ear and compounding it for thirty ye' a rs '!

l\Ir. l\lOURE: \Ye paid interest on the £1(;,\.,CO subsidY.

The Pnr-:~liER.: That is a different thing.

:\Ir. :\IOORE: \Vhy? If the Government pay compound interest on £10,000, where is the diifen•nce if they pay £286,000 per anuum. rrhen the sugge:stion was made that this £286,000 wa.o going to be paid into the board and the board would lend it to the Government to continue spending it, so that the Government would have the use of the money and would pay no interest on it. Of course, no scheme is going- to be sound 11 that is its basis. That 1s one of the reasons why an i11dcpendent actuarial report is suggested. If the Government are not going to pay compound interest on the con­tributions. they make and if that is going to bo entirely apart from the contributions of the railwavmcn I cannot see that vou will C\'Cr get a sound se home. '

The PRE:Il!ER: \Yhy weren't you anxious to get a ~ound f3chcmc at tlJe bcginn1ng- '{ You clisrcgarderl not only J'.-lr. Tllodey 'but also your own board.

Mr. MOORE: The whole basis of the scheme was brought forward experimen­tally because sufHcient data was unavailable. It is not a new suggestion. In his speech this morning the Pren1ior suggested that we deliberately introduced this schPrne to get ourse:vcs out of a difficultv because we Wanted to dismiss a lot Of rail waymPIL It is not as if railwa:;7 superannuation is anything· new. It has been advocated for .vears. Before there \\·as any sign of a deprr si on and before thoro was any sugges­tion of r;cttiPg rid of a number of men from the Railwav Department because there was no work for them to do, I remember it being suggested in two of my policy speeches that

a superannuation scheme should he provided. As far back as 1912 the suggestion was made for a raihvay superannuation schcn1o, but it was held over. In 1915 the trades unions asked for it, but it was deferred. I u :\Iarch. 1915, there was a scheme put forward and reported as actuanally unsound by l\ir. I3remner. On several occasions in 1919 d::Jpu­tations waited on the !hen Premier and asked for superannuation. In Jul:-', 1920. the hon. mernl)cr for Rockhampton stated that the schenw must be actuariallv sonnrl. In August, 1920. he promised constderatwn of the scheme. In l\ oYember, 1920, the Aus­tralian Workers' Union objected to the scheme for railway employees alone, stating that superannuation should app]~, to all workers. In June, 1922, there was an adverse resolution by the Australian Railwa:·s Union council. In July, 1922, a mao; meet­ing was held at the Centennial Eh!l, and a majority on the show of hands hv0umd superannuation. In April, 1924, Mr. Drem11er rmbmitted the schemE' to the Go.Tr,i·nnlt'Jtt, and in May, 1925, the enginemen asked for the scheme. In 1928 }lr. Hremner propound cd a further scheme with alternative l:oYcrlllllon-:; subsidies of £10,000, £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, and £50,000. In February, 19!9. the Premier of the day (Mr. MeCormack) suggcsieJ further inYe~tigation at 1 he Government ex11ense. the cost of which was £400, and that scheme to be submitted to a vote, a majority of two-thirds being required to make the scheme operative. This is not a new question. It was not brought up suddenly, but because the Government at that time thought there should be some scheme of superannuation for the Railway Depart­ment. They brought it in for the bond1t of the men employed in the Railway Depart­ment and for the benefit of the community as a whole. The scheme was admitted not to be sound at the time the 1\finister intro­duced it, ttnd he sa-id so in the House.

A great point is being made that Lec>tuso there is a reduction in the number of em­ployees. instead of haYing an accumulation of £7,000.000 at the end of forty-three years there would be only an accumulation of £5,000,000. The suggestion was made by hon. members opposite that men who were put off would come under the scheme as pensioners. Nothing of the sort! There were 3,000 men fewer employed on the railways last year than when the scheme v, as introduced, and only 769 old-age sen·ants came on to the scheme. lf you take off the 3,000 fmYer employed on the railways there is naturally not sueh a big accumulrrtion of the fund at the ~end of forty-three years, but there is the corollary that 3,000 fewer people will come on the schC"me. which practica!ly 1nakes the po~ltion much the same as it \Yas before. To say that the scheme v, as weakened because there \Ya.s a reduction in the an1ount of accumu­hted capital in that period is quite wrong, It was not weakened at all because there was a corresponding adYantagc on the other side; there would bo fe\Yer contributors to come on the scl1eme. That statement was jllst humbug. \Ye recognised that the scheme rnight pro\-e to be nnsound. but it 1vas recog­nised also that probably through the ''"ten­sion of the raihYay .. orvico in Queensland during the next thirty or forty years there> would be a large number of young poO)Jle gradually coming into the son-ice-lad por­ters and so on-and they would join the sJ1emo as contributors. ;\s _,-as stated

Jir. Jloore.]

298 Railway Superannuation [ASSEMBLY.] Acts Repeal Bilt.

by Mr. Tboch-v, the >chcme \Yould be sound if the age of the contributors had been under twenty-seven. How much sounder would it ban• been if 2.00·J employces came on who V\ ere only ninctcl~n yen rs of age? It must be recognised that thP scheme was not going to stop as it was, but that in future there would be young nwn coming- into the serv-ice. lnsurauce cmupa11ics 'vould never be in a solvent position if it were not for that reason and tl1e Pccuring of int(~rest eompoundcd on ]nyc:-..ted prcn1iurns. They depend 11.pon compound interest on contribu­tions which come into their funds. If the Premier did not intend that. uaturally Mr. Thodey would find it unsound.

'l'ho hon. member for Maree put forward a g-reater condemnation of the action of the Goyernmcnt than I haYc~ hl1 ard fro~n any other hon. mPmber. lio said that it was quite wrong that the future should have to pay for the sins of tho present Government. I quite agree with him, but he also agrees at the sa1no tin1e to auton1atic increases being- paid for out of Treasury bills, and £35,000 being paid to the police through the introduction of a 44-hour week and extra cosh; t.o other services for the same reason. He ag-rees with that and thinks there is nothing \\Tong wjth it.

I cannot fathom the fig-ures which were put forward and the sngge.stions made by the hon. member for Kcnncdy, in \Vhich he showed £286,000 a year at compound interest for a period of thirty year.-) ould give an amount of £19.00J,OOO.

The capital of payment to !he fund neces­sary to made it soh·ont. as announced by the Prerr1ier tbis morning in his second reading speech would be £4.",r;o,ooo; yet this £280,000 a year on which no intereot is to be paid will arr:ount to nearly £8,000,0CO. There seems to be a discrepancy in the figure~ \Yhieh are put fonmrd and tlrc basis on which thc>y are gtvcn.

The PREThi!ER: Do you not see that each year as retirements take place the number of men on the fund increases?

Mr. MOORE: Certainly I see that. We all recognise that we do not stand still. In the first three vears of the fund a number o£ n1en of sixtY years of age and upwards wont on the fund, but that would mean that fewer men would g-o on the fund in the next three year ... -it cut .. both ways. I suppose that. an ayen.1go of so rnany a year ,vould go on the fund, and when it has already a credit balance of £350,000 and the balance is increasing each year it is obvious that it will continue for a considerable time. According to the tables I think the fund will grow for thirty years, when it will have to pay out more than it gets in, and the accumulated balance will decrease. All this time, it is sug-g-ested, the Government will have been contributing £286,000 a year.

The PRE31!ER: Do vou think that the Government should contribute that?

Mr. J\IOORE: No, and I do net think it is ncccssarv that the Government should contri­bute that amount. I can understand it in the cas" of tlw £60,000 they are paying to the police fund-there is no compound interest therc1 lwca use thov do it to meet the annual expencliturc-but this is a capibtl fund and it would not i 1 ke £286,000 if compound interest were earned. It would probably be much nearer the mark over a period of years if tho amount was pnt at £100,000. It would certainly be considerably less than half,

[Jfr. Jloorr.

because 1ve are told that an antJual capital payment of £286.000 wouJd 111 thirty year" amount to over £19,000,000, and it will not lake nearlv that snm to make the fund olvcnt. Of cour· .. p, I do not know the basis.

on which Mr. Thodey was asked to make his report.

From one point of view I do not know that there would be any advantage in seeing the Government accept the amendment, bc·cause we have to recogune that a large number of their supporters do not want any supcrnn­nuation at all. The hon. member for Kelvin Grove suggec;ted that he did not believe in superannuation but wanted the socialisation of industry, and other hon. members hold the same views. If the party does not belie,·o· in superannuation, of course the Prernier, as the Leackr of the party, would not be enthusi­astic in brjnging in a superannuation schen1e or making one solvent. He is only too glad, If the fund gets into difficulties, to take the opportunity to say, "We had better abolish it." However, I would like to know the basis on which Mr. Thodoy reported and if another actuary is to make a report on the same basis, because I cannot understand any independent actuary suggesting or think­Ing for a rnoment that the Government would put in a capital amount of £286,000 a year. and that the monev should be used and ·interest should not be earned on it.

The PREMIER: On what basis do vou think an actuary works when investigating tl1e funds of an insurance company? ~

Mr. MOORE: I should say that he would investig-ate this fund in the same way, that he would never in vcstigate the funds of an imuranco company on the assumption that the conrpany \Vas going to earn cmnpound interest on its contributions. That is whv I cannot understand thew figures. If th~t is the basis :Mr. Thodev adopted the figures arc tota1l:"· \Yrong, because for that payrnent of £286.000 a year. with compound interest, we \1-ould have a fund sufficient to pay rail­waymen superannuation without arn contri­butious from the railwaymen at all.,

The PRE}JJER: On your arg·ument if we set aside £5,000.000 and put it out to interest, compound or otherwise, in thirty years we would be a1,]e to pay an allowance to every­one in tho State.

Mr. MOORE: That may be perfectly true, but I an1 not arguing frot:n that point of view. \Ylwt has boon sugg-estt'cl is an independent actuarial im·estigation. but the Premier has rejected the suggestion.

The PnnnER: You arc arguing on the ba;;;is that vou can pay a pound away and still haYo "it. That is your fundamental hypothesis.

i\Jr. :r.IOORR: I am not arguing- on the basis that the Govcmment should nav in a contribution of £285.000 and that the· board ~honld in\'c-;t it aud not get interest on it.

The PR':'I!LR: !\either am I. If there ""n' a clircct payment by the State of £286 000, do you think ihat in addition to a subsidy of that mag-uituclo the Government would pay eompouncl interest.

:\Ir. MOORE: I see no reason whv the Gm·ommont should contribute such a ·largo subsicly if interest is to be paid. There is no need for a su bsidv of £286.000 unlf',s the Gm,ernmcnt have decided that they will not pay interest on it.

The l'RE}UER: \Vonld not the sensible thin~· bo to compound the interest and fix the

Rail1ray Superannuation [5 SEPTE:\IBER.] Acts Repeal Rill. 299

.~nuount of the subsidv having rpgard to the· aecurnulation of i he" cornpound interPst '!

l\-11'. B'ADDEX: That is exactlY what 11r. Tltodey has not done. ·

.\Ir. MOORE: That is exactly '"hat l !uno ::.uggested.

The PnEoiiER : You have not.

1\lr. MOOHE : I have stated that the con· tribution by the Government would probably bo less than half if the Govcrmnent were to compound the intcrPst in respect of the sum invoh·ed. The whole basis of a superaunua· tion scheme is: Is it going to be aLhan­tageous to the con1munity nnd a benefit to the railwaymen'!

The PREoiiER: It is a great pity that you -did not do a lot of this thinking about the matter a few years ago.

Mr. MOORE : We did quite a lot of think­ing about it. A board was appointed to consider the matter. It maclc recommenda­tions and recommendations were made l1y Mr. Thodey.

The PREoiiER: The scheme evontua;]y sub­mitted to l'arliament was not the one approved by them.

1\J:r. GODFHEY MORGAX: I'ractical!y, it was. The PHE}lllm: l'\o.

lllr. MOOR!£ : Parliament made the scheme more uusound by redLteing the rate of con­teibutions from 61 per cent. to 5 per cent., and Parliament knew that that would make the scheme le"' sound. That does not provide .any excuse for suddenly wiping out the se-homo altogether. The l'remior has prac­licall,· backed up tho suggestion that no interest should be paid by the Government on the contributions. I cannot imagine such a suggestion coming from Mr. Thodey. If the Government intended to contribute only after the fund became insolvent then I could well imagine lVIr. Thodey saying that it would require an annual subsidy of £286,000, a sum that would be immediately ayailablo to n1cet pension payments. I can­not irnagine an actuary saying that an annual subsidy of £286,000 woulcl be required to be paid in over a period of thirty years from tho beginning unless the Government indicated that it was not their intention to pay interest on the annual subsidy. That is one thing that I cannot understand in the rq;ort. There is such a big discrepancy between the figures that it is hard to under­stand how an actuary could suggest that figure unless ho was asked to submit a report ou other than the usual basis.

The PHDl!ER: He was asked to investigate the thing thoroughly from the poiut of view of its actuarial soundness.

Mr. MOORE: Ho made a very extra­Drtlinar,v report from that point of Yicw, and ono thttt I fail to understand. \Vo have 1vorkod out the figures from all angles, and we cannot corne to a satisfactory conclusion at all. Mr. Rendle, an actuary, was avail­able on the board.

The PnnriER: \Ve had the whole matter ehecked up by the State Government Insur­ance Commissioner and his actuary and by J\1r. Brigden.

Mr. MOORE: It has been the desire of the Government to g-et rid of the scheme m·er since it ''Tas introrluced. 'rhcir YPry fir,t public utterance after attaining office was that they would get rid of the superannuation Schen)(? brcause it was an i1nposition on the railwaymen.

At 4.40 p.m., .Ylr. SPEAKEH resumed the chair.

:Mr. MOORE: When it became apparent that the community would suffer, the cry about an irnposition on the railwaynH~n gavu way to the clai1n that it \\as an iu1po;:;ition on the communitv. It would be an impo.'i­tion on the comni'unity to take anything like the amount suggested in the report. I should like to know whether it was con,iclercd that the railwavs >vould remain in their present cc:onomic l)osition for the ne~"Ct forty or fifty years. I should like to know >vhcther there waB considered the possibility of the employment of a large number of young­orriployees during the ensuing year~, and whether it was contemplated that another 450 temporary h<mds-rnany of ad.-ancod age-were to be placed on the permanent list. I should also like to know whether considera­tion was given to the fact that the scheme was to operate for a long period of years. The actuarv evidently took the demands as they arc ou· the fund to-day and assumed that for tho future there would he a continuance of present liability, irrespective of the age of rrwn now entering the service. Young n1en entering the service now would pay into the fund over a long period of years. Even if :Mr. Thodey had sufficient data to look at the scheme from that point of view it would be verv difficult for him to arrive at a basis to rn~ku his calculations in order to give an effecti.-e report. The speeches macle from the Government benches clo not inspire us with a great dt·al of confidence as to the reasons why the repeal of the scheme has been considered. It does not give me coll­lidence. I cannot make the figures quotccl tally, nor can I see in the reasons given sufficient justification for the repeal of this Act before further investigations are made. It does not seem to be Yery clear as to "·hat basis Mr. Thodey adopted in his second investigations.

The PREMIER: He was not asked to report on the scheme specifically.

.'VIr. MOORE: You said you asked him to go into and investigate it.

The PRDIIER: J'.lo; he discussed the matter with me. I said, " Take all the papers and make a full investigation of the schen1e." He did so, and reported back that it was intrinsically bacl.

Mr. MOORE: I oannot understand the basis on which he made his investigations.

The PRE}JIEH: There is nothing oll.ocure about the matter. It is a question of charges.

Mr. MOORE: The fact of the matter is that the Government are opposed to super­annuation and arc looking forward for an excuse to got rid of this scheme without arriving at any basis to improve it. The Australian Railways Union and other rail­way organisations did not want it, and their criticisms were with the object of pre­venting it functioning. The criticism has been with the object of getting rid of the scheme rather than making it one of use. It is significant that men 01·er thirty-Ji.-e years of age sec the advantage of super­annuation and appear to be much m favour of it, while the younger men do not see its advantages.

The PREMIER : 'l'he man of twenty gets an insurance out of all proportion to his con­tributions compounded.

.ili r . .LVI oore.]

300 Railway Superannuation, Etc., Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. :i\IOORE: I quite admit that. The Fr~mier. when introducing the Bill, omitted the fleures which h· furnished this after­noon, ~and 1ncrely put fonvard the sugges­tion that a man who paid 5s. a week for thirty years would get so much benefit, which \\US out of all proportion to his con­tributions. lle did uot sllow what his con· tr-ibutions at cornpou11d intcrc:-.t ·wonld be till this afternoon. Tr:is onl · sl!O\\s tl:at he tried to make (he scheme as IJacJ US he CO"Jid.

The seriom omission on the part of the Government is the lack of any suggeotion to make the scheme workable. They have condemned and put the wont complexion on it in order to get rid of it because a large section of their supporters do not want superannuation at nny price. Wo always fa Your superannuation because jt, is of tl'Clnondous advantage to those involved and the community. The reason put forward bY th0 present Go1·crmnent for my Govor';. mcnt introducing the schcme~-to get rid o{ men by placing them on tlHJ fund-did not dawn on us. The whole basis of the scheme was that it was going to provide a super­annuation for raihva .. nnc•n. ~uch a~ th0 public servi.cP h:-tYE', and th1t 'When ra.-il·wavnlPll rcti rod they would ha vo something to fall hack on. That i::~ a vcrv cxcelicnt idea. Vl'hcther a schcr11!c can be, formulated after this one has gone it is difficult t<J say, be­cause once a scheme has been damned there is a difficulty.

To find out cxactlv where we Eland the hon. IDE'rnb~r for Fa~s,ifcrn 1noved an amend­nH•nt so that the HollSO might !mow the position. The suggef'tion is that an invosti­ga tion be m a de on a basis we all under­stand--on the usual insuranC·l practice of the compouncling of interest on the contri­butions that come in. That seems to me to be a reasonable reqll!est. The Premier savs he will not accept the amendment, and the i'Cason appears to me to be his mad hurry to get rid of a scheme to which he objected right from the beginning.

Question-" That the word proposed to be omitted (.lir. lVienholt's a·mendment) stand part of the question"-puL; and the House divided:-

AYES 1 28. Mr. Barber Mr. Hayes

Bedford 1--ht)lf-"'' BrasAington Keogh Bruce Larcombe Hnlrock Llewelyn Conroy Mull an Cnopt:r Smith Copley, P. K. Stop ford Copley, w. J. Taylor, G. C Dash Waters Foley Williams Funnell Galr TP71C1'S: Glect~on King, w. T. Hanlon O'Keefe

NOES, 24.

Mr. Bayley Mr. M organ Brand Nicklin Clayton Nimmo Costello Roberts Daniel Rnssell Deacon Swayne Edwards Tozer Fadden Walker Grim stone Wienholt King, R. M. Maher TelleTs: Maxwell Kenny Moo re Sparkes

!Mr. fl1 oore.

AYES.

Mr. ·wellington Pease Col !ins Hanson

PAIRS. !'OES.

Mr. Barnes Plunkett Peterson Sizer

Resoh·ed in the affirmative.

Question-" That the Bill be now read a ~econd time" (Jlr. Smith's motion) put; ancl rile House divided:-

AYES, 28. Mr. Barber Mr. Keogh

Bedford King, w. T. B rassington Larcombe Bruce Llewelyn Bulcock Mull an Conroy O'Keefe Cooper Smith Copley, w. J. Stop ford Dash Taylor, G. (~. Foley ·waters Gair Williams Gledson Hanlon TellcTs: Hayes Copley, P. K. Hynes Funnell

NOESJ 24. Mr. Bayley Mr. Morgan

Brand Nim1110 Clayton l1obcrts Daniel RusselJ Deacon Sparkes Edwards Swayne Fodden Tozer Grin1stone Walker Kenny Wienholt King, 11. M. M ab er Tellc,·s: Maxwell Costello Moo re Nicklin

PAIRS. AYES. 1\"oES.

Mr. Wellington Mr. Barne.; Pease Plunkett Collins Peterson Hanson Sizer

Resolved in the affirmative.

Consideration of the Bill in Committee made an Or-der of the Day for to-morrow.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.