Superannuation for travellers

Press, 22 February 1980, Page 12

Superannuation for travellers

Sir, — D. Wallace now knows why voices have not been raised about the inequity of national superannuation’s being cut • to qualified New Zealanders who choose to spend above ithree months abroad. We clearly understand that the Government decides what is to be regarded as normal, and the limits of unpenalised behaviour. Mr Gair also says that this policy (of cutting superannuation payments during long absences) is in the spirit of the superannuation scheme. Can he tell us if this spirit extends to the Finance Act, arid if the same period of absence qualifies us for a cut in income tax? His statement that a priority is given to maintaining the national superannuation for those living in New Zealand implies that this is a national charity and not a benefit earned by a minimum period of taxed contribution. Can Mr Gair please clear up the fiscal nature of this benefit? — Yours, etc., R. A. SMITHAM. January 28, 1980. [The Minister of Social Welfare, Mr Gair, replies: “National superannuation is not a benefit earned by ‘a minimum period of taxed contribution’ as R. A. Smitham has suggested. The social security system in New Zealand is funded from general taxation and eligibility is not based on contributions to taxation but rather on physical residence in New Zealand. If this were not the case groups which do not pay taxes, such as handicapped people and housewives would not be able

to obtain benefits and it has always been an integral part of the New Zealand social security system that such people should qualify. Accordingly when serious pressure was being placed on the Government to reduce expenditure it was important that priority be given to maintaining benefit payments to people remaining in New Zealand The decision to withdraw payment of benefit including national superannuation where a period of temporary absence exceeds 13 weeks was, however, based on statistical information which suggested that a limit of 13 weeks would enable the majority' of beneficiaries to undertake overseas travel without undue penalty.”]