Women propose general living allowance

Press, 14 May 1985, Page 9

Women propose general living allowance

A general living allowance should be introduced to cover all New Zealanders on inadequate incomes, the Budget 85 Task Force heard in Christchurch yesterday. The allowance, which should be subject to a means test on the individual rather than on the family unit, should replace all personal benefits, said a representative of the Canterbury Women’s Employment Trust, Ms Jan Anderson. Ms Anderson was one of five women who presented oral submissions to the task force on behalf of the trust, the National Organisation for Women, and Women in Economics. . , Everybody, including those caring for children and elderly at home fi would he eligible for the- living

allowance. Marital status should not determine whether the allowance was granted, said Ms Anderson. Ms Rosemary Novitz, a member of the Women in Economics group, said that the allowance should at least equal half the average full-time wage after tax. She estimated it should be about $lOO. All income, whether derived through income or State support, below that amount should be tax-free, she said. It should form the tax threshold. People on the allowance would be able to build it up to the average salary without losing it. Such a move would provide incentive for the part-time worker, she said. & The parent or person car-

ing for children in a family should also receive the equivalent of half the general allowance for each child, said Ms Novitz. That would equal a quarter of the average full-time wage after tax.

The allowance should not be taxed if the person receiving it did not have other earnings. High-income families could be taxed to offset or abate the allowance. Two submissions, from Mr John Irwin, of Ashburton, and Mr Pat Boyle, on behalf of the Disabled Persons’ Centre, called for increasing the invalid’s benefit to a “realistic” level.

Mr Irwin, who has limited use of his arms and legs, said that many disabled

people had the capacity to be independent but not the money to achieve it. All supplementary benefits should be scrapped and the invalid’s benefit increased to $l5O for a single person (now $77 to $9B), and $250 for a married couple (now from $166), he said.

Mr Irwin said that he spent his first 25 years in and out of hospital. When he was 26, with the help of his father, he set up a small poultry unit and later invested money in shares. Now, married and with a child, his annual earnings totalled only $ll,OOO.

If he was to give up the poultry unit and the investment, he would be eligible only for a full invalid’s

benefit of about $lO,OOO, he said.

Other disabled people, including the blind and those covered by Accident Compensation, were eligible for the full benefit regardless of income, he said.

The means test for the invalid’s benefit should be abolished, he said.

. Encouraging disabled people to try to achieve independence would save the nation the costs of institutional care, he said. It cost an average $l5O a day to keep someone in an institution.

Mr Boyle said that disabled people who were confined to institutions had virtually no spare money. After money had been deducted for hospitij costs, a disabled person often was

left with about $lO. Most people on benefits would prefer to work if they could, said Mr Boyle. Mr W. G. Ramsay, a representative of A.Z.A.R.D.S., an organisation which supports families and friends of people with Alzheimers disease and related disorders, called for increasing the invalid’s benefit, and extending supplementary assistance. Caring for a person suffering from the disease — known also as dementia — was full-time, exhausting and stressful, he said.

Other submissions were heard on national superannuation, the introducing of subsidies to religious and welfare-backed rest homes, and anomalies in the benefit system.

The task force, which is chaired by Mr John McKenzie, and includes Mr David Preston, from the Treasury, Mr Don Gray and Ms Jacky Renouf, from the Social Welfare Department, will hear more oral submissions today.

Written submissions on the force’s discussion paper, “Benefits, taxes and the 1985 Budget,” will be accepted from the public until May 31.

The task force was set up to find ways to improve the tax and benefit system that could be included in this year’s Budget. Issues which cannot be dealt with this year, including national superannuation, will be held ovex for a Royal Commission? on social welfare.