‘Perks’ for elderly pledged by Labour

Press, 24 February 1978, Page 3

‘Perks’ for elderly pledged by Labour

A Labour government would reintroduce “pensioners’ perks” such as assistance with telephone rentals, travel, and rates, for those who need them, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) said yesterday. Speaking to the Christchurch Beneficiaries Association, Mr Rowling said the Labour Party would not enter this year’s election promising big spending on social welfare in an attempt to buy votes, but serious anomalies in the welfare system would be reviewed.

The cost of the welfare system was accelerating at a remarkable rate, he said. “If the rate of acceleration continues at that of the last few years, it will be only 29 years before the whole of the national income is devoted to education, health, and social welfare,” he said. The present national superannuation scheme would stay; it was impractical to attempt to change it, and to do so would be dis-

concerting to aged beneficiaries who were entitled to expect some contin ty and security, rather than never-ending changes in their circumstances.

Nor could he see that the principle of taxation of benefits could be changed, said Mr Rowling. One area in which advances could be made was that of allowable additional income on things such as widow’s benefits, he said.

“I believe the limit at present is far too low and the abatement rate is far too steep,” said Mr Rowling. As an example he quoted a woman receiving the $44 a week widows’ benefit who was offered a satisfying and useful job which paid $BO a week gross. If the woman accepted the job, she would receive $66.76 in her hand, after tax reduced her pay to $65.73 and the abatement reduced her pension to $l.Ol. “This means effectively that she is paying tax of 72 cents in the dollar,” he said. “That’s not my idea of

fair taxation. There has got to be a review of the abatement. The formula was set several years ago and is completely out of date.” Mr Rowling also criticised the unduly complicated nature of benefits and used as an example three brothers, each earning $154 a week. The eldest turned 60 and continued to work while receiving national superannuation; the second was involved in a motor accident, was no longer able to work and received accident compensation only; the third had a bad heart attack, was also unable to work and was put on an invalid’s benefit.

As a result, although all three had been used to the same weekly income of $154, the eldest now received $241 , the second $123, and the third, on the invalid’s benefit $7B. “That shows just how crazy our social welfare system has got over the last few years,” he said.