Govt canning six-year superannuation reviews
The government is quietly, with little fanfare, repealing the Retirement Income Act and with it the requirement for six yearly Periodic Report Groups on New Zealand’s long term superannuation issues.
Tuesday, May 25th 2004, 8:38PM
by Rob Hosking
Michael Littlewood, who was part of the 1992 group, says the abolition of the PRG is a serious mistake.
“The government refuses to have a discussion about the size and shape of New Zealand Superannuation and the abolition of the PRG suits it very well.”
The PRGs have had a major impact on policy, he says. “I think the PRG has a very important role, but the government tends not to like this sort of body because it provokes debate on issues it might feel uncomfortable being aired. But unless something replaces it I’m opposed to its abolition.”
Another former PRG member, Susan St John, described the move as “a very bad move”.
“I’m really quite stunned. It was really difficult to get the Accord into place in 1992 and one of the outcomes of that was the six yearly PRGs. It’s been a safeguard to having an independent look at retirement income policies, and an avenue for wider debate.”
At this stage all political parties supported the move introduction of the bill, but that does not mean they will support it all the way through.
National deputy finance spokesman John Key noted that the justification for abolishing the PRG was that a more regular ongoing work programme is needed on a yearly basis.
However there are no provisions for that sort of work in the bill, he told the House.
“There is a risk that when one has an individual work programme looking at individual silos as they operate within the superannuation area, the overall review of issues facing New Zealand is not addressed fully.”
Green co-leader Rod Donald has been even stronger on the issue of the PRG.
In introducing the legislation Social Services Minister Steve Maharey cited a recommendation by the 2003 PRG that six yearly reviews were perhaps no longer appropriate.
That is “a little disingenuous”, Donald told the House – all it meant was that the PRG should occur more frequently.
“We cannot do better at this stage than what the periodic report group proposed in its own report, which was to establish a work-based savings group and a process for the ongoing monitoring of savings, tax, and regulatory issues.
That was coupled with an advisory group to create a mechanism for stakeholders to provide comment and input into the work programme.
“The main benefit that I felt came from the periodic report group 2003 was the fact that it got around one table all the key players and representatives of all the key sectors that have an interest in retirement.”
Rob Hosking is a Wellington-based freelance writer specialising in political, economic and IT related issues.
| « Super Fund appoints small-cap equity managers | Budget boosts Super Fund » |
Special Offers
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
