Settling on superannuation

Press, 30 August 1986, Page 20

Settling on superannuation

For most people, a fair proportion of their working life is aimed at ensuring a comfortable retirement untroubled by financial worries. The object is to reach retiring age with some certainty that as far as is possible everything has been provided for. Planning for retirement, and coping with it when it arrives, are made much more difficult when national superannuation, a pivotal factor of the calculations, is subject to change and uncertainty. The payment of national superannuation to everyone over the age of 60, without a means test and regardless of whether the recipient is still working, is claimed to be an unsustainable burden on the economy. This is why the Government broke its election promise and imposed a surtax on superannuitants who earned other income. It is also why the Government has offered to place superannuation outside party politics and work with the Opposition on setting up a new system. The National Party’s rejection of this offer was prompt and final. The party produced its own formula for a gradual putting back to 65 the age at which superannuation would become payable and, as a carrot, promised that Labour’s surtax would be removed. The Government, to its credit, is looking at the Opposition proposals to see what elements it supports and could incorporate in its own revision of national superannuation. The National Party might sense political advantage in the issue, and

relish any embarrassment it can cause the Government over the imposition of the surtax; but it would be best for everyone if superannuation could be placed above party politics, as the Government suggested. The present argument can be traced directly to the political one-upmanship of the 1975 General Election campaign. It put paid to an earlier scheme considered by the former Labour Government. A repetition of that performance, with the main parties tempting the electorate with offer and counter-offer, would leave the country no better off. The National Party has put its proposal before the country. If the party is confident that what it suggests is the best way possible to amend the present system, it need do no more than contribute the scheme to a bipartisan committee of review. If the scheme is adopted, all will know who thought of it first; though the National Party can be relied on to remind us all, just in case. If some improvements or refinements are found during the process, well and good. The point is that a bipartisan approach should produce a scheme that has the support of both parties, and therefore a better-than-even chance of remaining in force long enough for pedple to plan their futures upon it with confidence. Without some co-operation between the main political parties, the best that can be said for any modifications is that they are likely to last at least until the next election. The uncertainty has persisted long enough.