Welfare distorted, says Mr Rowling

Press, 14 November 1977, Page 6

Welfare distorted, says Mr Rowling

PA Nelson Some drastic rethinking of New Zealand’s social welfare structure is “a must,” according to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling),

“In human terms we cannot accept a social welfare structure that gives relatively more to those who do not need it, and deprives those who do,” he said.

Mr Rowling, who was addressing the Federation of Launderers and Drycleaners, said the fact had to be faced that there were now serious distortions within the welfare system which had arisen largely because of the New Zealand habit of dealing with a problem piecemeal rather than rethinking. It had taken several years and several reports to ease the pioneering vision of the Woodhouse report on accident compensation into law, Mr Rowling said. “In that time, the significance of the idea of incomerelated benefits became somew'hat lost,” he said,

“Yet, in accepting that system, we accept that when a person suffers disability through injury at home, at work, or on the road, the community will sustain him at something approximating his former income.

“It will try to preserve the

continuity of his former way of life.

“Yet, if the same disability arises from sickness, a heart attack or other illness, we do not maintain that same support.”

Mr Rowling gave the example of three brothers. If ’ one, earning $B6OO a year, fell under a bus and could not work again he would receive 80 per cent of his previous income — $6900 a year. Another brother, earning the same amount, who suffered a severe heart attack and could not work, would be eligible for the sickness benefit of about $3300 a year when his sick leave ran out. “In social terms, their needs and their rights would seem to be the same — in welfare terms they are not,” Mr Rowling said. He said that a third brother, just turned 60, on about the same income and still working, would get an extra $4OOO a year under the National Superannuation just for having reached the age of 60. The income of the three brothers, all earlier earning about $B6OO, would then be: $3300 (sickness); $6900 (accid e n t); and $12,600 (superannuation). “Such a state of affairs is not on,” Mr Rowling said.

“In economic terms, we cannot accept that a declin-

irig force of taxpayers can be asked to carry an everincreasing load.

“In human terms, we cannot accept a social welfare structure that gives relatively more to those who do not need it, and deprives those who do." But Mr Rowling said people should not fear that a Labour Government would grab something from them.

“Contrary to persistent propaganda we do not work that way,” he said, “I can firmly assure every beneficiary who depends on superannuation for a decent standard of living that he or she will not be placed in a worse position by any changes the Labour Government might make. “In fact, we pledge to restore the additional benefits that have been phased out by this Administration.” Mr Rowling said this would ensure that many people were considerably better off. “On the other hand, I will give no guarantee to keep on increasing the payment of handouts to those on very high incomes,” he said.

“I find it an ironic situation that Cabinet Ministers on $24,000 a year receive these payments. This makes a mockery of the whole concept of social welfare.”