Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11570] 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: When was the income abatement threshold outlined in Income Test 3 of section 3 of the Social Security Act 1964 set at its current level of $80 a week? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 1 July 1996. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware that inflation has increased by 24.9 percent since 1996 meaning that non-qualified spouses receiving superannuation will have seen their base superannuation rate rise through an annual adjustment and would need to have the rebate kick in at around $100 if they were to achieve parity with their superannuation payment from that period? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of that and I advise the member that one of the things that is taking place at the present time is a look at the abatement thresholds right across a whole range of payments as part of the Working New Zealand package that we are looking at. As a result of that we will take a look at this issue. I will not prejudice what we will do at the end of it but the member can be guaranteed that it will be looked at during that review. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the non-qualified spouse rate of 77c in the dollar after $80 earned is at odds with the rebate rate of the widows benefit and other benefits set at 30c in the dollar and is he aware of the fact that the $80 amount has not changed for more than a decade; if so what incentive is there for those on a non-qualified spouse rate of superannuation to earn extra income? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Agree with it or disagree with it the policy-based reason for this is simply that if one is on a widows benefit the assumption is that one has children at home and therefore will be going out to part-time work. If a person is under 65 and is a non-qualifying spouse that person is probably able to go out for full-time work. That is why there is a difference between the abatement regimes. The member may agree or disagree with that but that has been the basis of that decision for a very long time and I assume that it will carry on because of the presence or absence of children. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Would the Minister concede that there is a correlation between the dramatic fall in private income for seniors and the fact that they are penalised by the rebate rate of 70c per dollar imposed after $80 a week of extra earnings; and if he does will he accept New Zealand First’s recommendation to change the rebate to 30c in the dollar and lift the income threshold to $100; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know because New Zealand First and the Government have an agreement around these issues we have been seeking to increase and protect the income of superannuitants. The issue she raises is one I have probably addressed in my answer to that earlier question—that if through Working New Zealand we do have a look at abatement regimes this will be captured by that review. I will not guarantee that the outcome will be exactly as the member would like because all of these things of course have to be judged in terms of how much money there is and whether it is a productive way of going about spending that money. But I can guarantee that it will be reviewed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that unlike other couple beneficiaries superannuitants do not have their entire income entitlement abated away because the qualifying partner can opt for half the married rate and that does not then affect any earnings the other partner can have? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is exactly right. It does give a choice to people who are in the situation of one person being over 65 and the non-qualifying spouse being under 65. There obviously are people who want to make that choice as Dr Cullen has outlined because they do not want to or cannot see themselves as being able to secure work. They can take that choice without any impact on their income.