Both Acts David Seymour and Janet Wilson (ex-National Party staffer) are spreading misinformation re the opportunities for people post -65 working. The definition for capturing paid work is loose (1 hour per week counts as in paid work) it is unhelpful. For the record here is the definition used, make your own decision on its usefulness. In the House Hold Labour Force Survey (HLFS) used by Stats NZ, a person is considered employed if they worked for pay or profit for one hour or more, or worked unpaid for one hour or more in work that directly contributes to a business. Additionally, someone is considered employed if they have a job but are not at work due to illness, leave, or other reasons
The reality for those over 65 is regular work is only available for those educated or in a niche field e.g. A Doctor working part time post 65 years. For the great majority, many are unable to work due to health, mental burn out, or physical decline.
For those who would like to supplement their income, rampant bias within the employment and recruitment industries against aged workers, reduces opportunities to a minimum, and because of this work conditions and fair and consistent work availability is often marginal.
Janet Wilson in a glib recent article said “turning 65 now no longer heralds the hard life-change the gold-watch drinks party once had but simply becomes a transition into other full or part-time work”, and last week David Seymour in the House, commented “many people here in Parliament can work past 65”.
Both Seymour and Wilson need to recognize that NZ Super is excellent public policy and requires a Parliamentary accord acknowledging “ New Zealand Superannuation has become a generational transfer entitlement wrapped around family, equity, and well-being principles. It is there already for future generations, supported by Kiwi Saver.”
The funding of other policy needs is in the sphere of capital gains tax, inheritance tax, land/wealth tax and stamp duty, all more appropriate and targeted than dismantling wonderful public policy e.g. NZ Super/Kiwi Saver schemes.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor
It’s preposterous for Janet Wilson to claim (14 May) that our current public pension was designed 127 years ago. It’s true that the first pension was introduced in 1898, but it looked nothing like our current system. That 19th – Century pension was subject to a rigorous means test covering both income and assets (a feature that Janet Wilson seems to want back). Other provisions included evidence of good character and the requirement to apply in a public court session. It’s difficult to imagine that happening today. The system was changed in 1938 with the Social Security Act, then again in the 1970s when the forerunner of New Zealand Super (NZS) was introduced. The new scheme was prohibitively costly, and had to be wound back in the 1990s. In other words, the system has been redesigned several times. Through numerous reviews since, it has been found to be fit for purpose. If a case is to be made for change to NZS, it’s important to be clear about its history, and its economic costs over time. For Janet Wilson to cite only the nominal cost, without also referencing the percentage of GDP spent on NZS – well below the OECD average – is misleading.
Regards Malcolm Menzies