Death benefit provision based on Govt. scheme

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33477, 7 March 1974, Page 3

Death benefit provision based on Govt. scheme

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 6.

The death benefit provision in the New Zealand superannuation scheme was in line with the provision for death benefits in the existing Government superannuation scheme, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr H. G. Lang) said today.

Mr Lang made the point in one of a series of written replies to questions asked of the Treasury by members of the Select Committee hearing submissions on the New Zealand Superannuation Corporation Bill.

The replies were tabled when the committee resumed its hearing. A further list of answers is expected next week.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Muldoon) had asked why the death benefit was “so low” when the Inland Revenue Department had approved only schemes which included a death benefit reflecting the employers’ contributions.

Mr Lang replied that the the question involved policy, and was therefore not for him to answer, the provision in the bill covering the death benefit was similar to that in the Government superannuation scheme.

Mr Muldoon had also asked why, under one clause, dependence was a criterion for the payment of an allowance to the survivor of a de facto

relationship, when it occurred nowhere else in the bill.

Mr Lang replied that the clause as drafted adopted the practice of the Department of Social Welfare. It was not necessary anywhere else in the bill.

Mr G. F. Gair (Nat., North Shore) had asked whether the terms and conditions of loans, grants, advances and guarantees by the Government to the corporation would be re-

quired to be publicly disclosed.

Mr Lang said that such loans, grants and advances to the corporation would be made from money appropriated by Parliament which would ensure public disclosure under the normal Parliamentary procedures for estimates and appropriation. In respect of guarantees the normal procedure for disclosure would apply under the heading of contingent liabilities. The accounts of the corporation would be subject to audit by the Audit Office.

The annual report and accounts, with the Audit Office report, had to be tabled in Parliament. In reply to a series of questions from Mr L. R. Adams-Schneider (Nat.. Waikato), Mr Lang said these had a common theme, mainly the effect that payments from the New Zealand scheme would have on the eligibility to receive social security benefits.

“In this respect, insofar as the legislation and practise of the Social Welfare Department is concerned, payments from the New Zealand scheme will be no different from payments from any al-

ternative scheme, or any present superannuation scheme

“Where a means test of income applies under social security legislation it will apply equally to all schemes.” In reply to another question, by Mr Gair, Mr Lang indicated that the provisions relating to the amount of refund payable to a self-employed person leaving New Zealand permanently might have to be modified. Mr Gair had said that the present provisions meant that a self-employed person leaving New Zealand permanently would not be refunded the full amount he had paid into the scheme in his working life. He suggested this would amount to a tax on emigration by New Zealanders. Mr Lang said the Treasury was aware of the situation, and recognised that a modification might be needed. “This is a complex problem There are cases where a self employed person had earlier in his working life also been an employee, and the rules would need to cover both situations. It is, of course, open to persons leaving New Zealand to leave their contributions in the fund and draw the pension in due course.”