THE TROUBLE WITH THE FRENCH
Once again the French nation is causing trouble for us New Zealanders. Albeit inadvertently. This follows protests and riots in France following a proposed move by the French Government to raise the retirement there from 62 to 64. The proposed reforms are themselves controversial, as is the process by which President Emmanuel Macron is going about the change, skipping a debate in the country’s lower house.
But what the French actions have done is to bring the gloom and doom merchants and naysayers out of the wood-work again to condemn our Superannuation Scheme. Here in NZ it is “universal”. Everyone 65 and over is able to access the “pension” once they have applied. Headlines are now appearing in local and national media outlets, quote: “Pensions shouldn’t go to rich, old people who didn’t save for it”, and other such outbursts.
Once again it is the usual voices providing ‘so called’ reasons why superannuation should no longer be universal and why groups within our society should be excluded from the scheme. The best statement was, “rich old people who didn’t save for it”. That statement is just flat out wrong and is designed to mislead. I still recall as a young man starting my first job, filling out an IRD form authorising Inland Revenue to $x.xx from my pay for my pension, down the track. Of course, I was incensed. How dare they take money from me for my retirement 40 years into the future? But they did and I am now pleased that such was the case.
I also signed up to Kiwi Saver to save for my retirement, so to suggest that I did not save for my retirement was, and is, wrong.
It is interesting to use the current French dilemma to blame us who live some 12,000km away for our pension woes. That is just the catalyst for this discussion. Look who is once again using the French to develop their own agenda.
Susan St John from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) is leading the charge along with several economists. Over recent days and certainly since the Stuart Nash affair, the concerns about lobbyists have come to the fore. In my view Susan St John is just another lobbyist. She prattles on about children living in poverty. Sure, there are some children who live in less than ideal conditions. But poverty in NZ, that is a question?
I spent 10 years living in southern Africa. If you want to see poverty, real poverty, go there. I have lived in several communities here in NZ where the household income was way below the national average. But children living in poverty – maybe not so much. I have worked in several low decile schools in the North Island. The children in my care received only the very best of everything we could provide. We made sure that every single child had “a place in the sun”. No one went without shoes or coats, no one went hungry and there were no school lunches or breakfast clubs. We managed without screaming for more financial help. But not one of those children could have been said to be living in poverty. So where are these children?
Ask yourselves this: if we take money from people’s superannuation, where many of our seniors might be asset rich but cash poor, or are living on their pension in times of rising inflation and rising costs for fruit and verges, and pass it across to the CPAG to disburse to children living in poverty - are we not simply passing the problems from one set of people to another and who then benefits?
Seniors need to resist changes to the superannuation scheme at all costs. Just ask the French!
PRESIDENT