ELECTION VITAL TO MULDOON PLAN

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33878, 25 June 1975, Page 1

ELECTION VITAL TO MULDOON PLAN

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON, June 24.

The Muldoon universal superannuation scheme is plainly the extension of a scheme originally introduced by the National Government under the late Sir Sidney Holland.

It is best regarded in this light rather than as an alternative to the Labour superannuation scheme. Its author has “admitted paternity” of the scheme.

This is one point arising from a close perusal of papers on’ the National Party scheme, followed by an interview with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Muldoon). Another is that the successful launching and maintenance of the scheme depends entirely on the National Party’s winning this year’s General Election and putting it into effect quickly.

Mr Muldoon himself acknowledges that after another three years of Labour Government, the present system will be so entrenched, with such a build-up of capital, that it would be difficult to upset. He said that the scheme he had produced was “the most attractive concept” arising from the Select Committee hearings on the Government’s superannuation scheme. As a member of the committee, Mr Muldoon heard most of the alternative schemes proposed. He mentioned the submissions of Canon Walter Arnold and Mr Castle as “especially interesting.” Among those who worked with him on the National Party plan were Messrs T. F.

Gill (East Coast Bays), G. F. Gair (North Shore) and L. R. Adams-Schneider (Waikato). There is some feeling, particularly in banking and insurance circles, that even now the Muldoon scheme is too late. Insurance companies have become more favourably disposed towards the present scheme as they have worked with it, and realise that it certainly does not eliminate their life insurance interests.

However, by allowing private life insurance schemes to reopen as a “second tier,” the National scheme might be even better for them.

For others the appeal will be in the fact that it will be less complicated to run (which itself should mean less expense), and that it will involve less exposure for elderly people, who will not be required to present their bankbooks periodically for the inspection of cashiers. Seen as an extension of the long-standing universal superannuation scheme, it is also more easily understood. The dropping of the payout age to 60 will also find favour, though some will say that it has two of the drawbacks of Labour’s scheme, in that it is compulsory, and there are no provisions for lump-sum payments. Counterbalancing these are the proposals to continue the payment of full pension to the surviving partner, in the event of the death of one member of a married couple.

Also, there is the proviso that, though the pay-in is related to earned income, the benefit is on a single rate. Many people will regard the facts that the pension is not income-related, and that recipients may go on working without prejudicing their chances of receiving the full pension, as main points in the National Party scheme.

For his part, Mr Muldoon emphasises that it is designed as a two-tier scheme. Though everyone who has been 10 years or more in New Zealand will receive a pension at the flat rate when he or she reaches 60, there is no prohibition against investing money in any private superannuation scheme.

This second tier would be allowed to run free, while the first tier produced a universal basic income to ensure the truth of the oft-abused phrase “social security.”