‘Whistling in dark’

Press, 28 July 1989, Page 1

‘Whistling in dark’

PA Wellington The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger has described the Budget as “a great disappointment for New Zealand.” The Government’s economic goals for 1992 would not be achieved because the Budget had not given New Zealand a framework to solve its problems, he said. “They should be helping businesses to get ahead. It doesn’t have the boldness to get the economy moving. “Laying out goals is just whistling in the dark.” Mr Bolger said Labour had swung towards National Party policy with its new superannuation scheme by increasing the retirement age and the adoption of a universal benefits scheme. But a National Government would abolish surtax, and implement measures to encourage people to add to their superannuation by private saving schemes. A level set at 65 per cent of the annual wage was not enough for retired people to live on. He did not think the Budget would be popular with the electorate, and young people particularly would be hurt by the decision to impose a six-month waiting period before school-leavers could get the unemployment benefit “It won’t work without training programmes,” he said. National’s social policy spokesman, Mr Simon Upton, condemned the Guaranteed Retirement . Income as not worth the paper it was written on. “The Government has simply decided to call some of the revenue it was' already collecting a ‘retirement •tax’ and put a ring around it They might as well

have singled out lighthouse maintenance and expressed it as a separate tax,” he said. He forecast that the value of pensions would be allowed to erode. “The Government was clearly panicked into dropping a compulsory savings scheme but it didn’t have the courage to adopt the only other alternative — a tax incentive for long-term, contractual savings.” The leader of Social Credit, Mr Beetham called the Budget a “damp squib.”

“It’s a damp squib in terms of the Prime Minister’s pre-Budget blurb because of the planned delay in the implementation of some worthwhile reforms and the minimal effect that others will have on real incomes,” he said. “The main problem with the Budget is that it does nothing significant to raise either internal investment or consumer demands to the level needed to restimullate the economy and mount an effective attack on unemployment”