by Rob Hosking
MPs on the social services select committee have recommended the Retirement Commission carry out a major review of retirement policy in 2007, and be required to report every three years thereafter.
The proposal is contained in the report back of the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill and received unanimous support from MPs.
The proposal may go some way to mollify critics of the abolition of the PRG.
The most recent PRG report recommended abolition of the six yearly report, which is a statutory requirement of the Retirement Act 1993.
The fact that the PRG only occurred every six years was seen as less than useful: however supporters of its continuation believe that it has an independence which has allowed it to put forward options which have not always found favour with the government of the day, and has therefore been able to push the savings debate further than an entity closer to the government would be able to.
It is that concern which prompted some submitters to suggest the Retirement Commission be made an officer of Parliament, along similar lines to the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
The committee rejected that suggestion, saying in its report that the role of the commissioner has an “emphasis on the provision of information and related education activities”. The bill also finally abolishes the Superannuation Accord, which has been moribund since 1998.
Rob Hosking is a Wellington-based freelance writer specialising in political, economic and IT related issues.
| « United Future makes submission | Cullen answers some questions on workplace savings » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved