<I>

  <&>Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English Version One</&>
  <&>Copyright 1998 School of Linguistics & Applied Language Studies</&>
  <&>Victoria University of Wellington</&>

  <&>side one</&>
  <&>0:33</&>
  

  <WSC#DGI072:0005:IM>
      what about the concern of the backbenchers the steep clawback
      for superannuitants earning more than eighty dollars a week from
      other investments <,>

  <WSC#DGI072:0010:IM>
      is that an area that you're going to be looking at particularly
      in today's caucus

  <WSC#DGI072:0015:RR>
      oh no

  <WSC#DGI072:0020:RR>
      the ink is scarcely dry on the budget

  <WSC#DGI072:0025:RR>
      <.>th</.> there is no turning back <,>

  <WSC#DGI072:0030:RR>
      the changes were made because they had to be made <,>

  <WSC#DGI072:0035:RR>
      the budget sends a very substantial set of <&>1:00</&> signals

  <WSC#DGI072:0040:RR>
      we will look after those who most need our protection that's the
      sixty five percent <,> and we will ask those who are better off
      to make a contribution

  <WSC#DGI072:0045:RR>
      now er there is er signalled in the budget an intention to look
      at how we treat the private provision of retirement income that
      that is an issue that we signalled for further scrutiny and
      debate <.>a</.> and er my suggestion is that we all spend our
      energy on that cause

  <WSC#DGI072:0050:RR>
      i mean we have spent six days in budget debate and one night
      subsequent to the budget

  <WSC#DGI072:0055:RR>
      it's now the seventh day

  <WSC#DGI072:0060:RR>
      it's not time to rest but we do have an agenda of reform in the
      way in which we look at the private provision of retirement
      income and that's where i think you will find the caucus will be
      spending its energies

  <WSC#DGI072:0065:IM>
      what about on treasury

  <WSC#DGI072:0070:IM>
      er michael laws has been saying that treasury is the most
      useless advisory group in the western world and er he's never
      known treasury to get a prediction right <&>2:00</&>

  <WSC#DGI072:0075:RR>
      oh well that personal abuse deserves the contempt of my silence

  <WSC#DGI072:0080:IM>
      nonetheless it raises some questions that which perhaps are
      certainly echoed in some of the letters i've got here

  <WSC#DGI072:0085:IM>
      people wonder if treasury is to be trusted minister

  <WSC#DGI072:0090:RR>
      the government <,> brought down the budget

  <WSC#DGI072:0095:RR>
      the government <,> is acting <,> in the country's interests

  <WSC#DGI072:0100:RR>
      it is the government that is accountable

  <WSC#DGI072:0105:RR>
      i think it's contemptible when people reduce the argument to
      personal abuse

  <WSC#DGI072:0110:IM>
      i don't know is it so much personal abuse

  <WSC#DGI072:0115:IM>
      i mean there's no personalities as such involved though people
      are questioning whether the advisory groups are giving good
      advice and is treasury a group that is giving good advice
      minister

  <WSC#DGI072:0120:RR>
      governments for years for all my adult life <,> have been given
      advice to spend more to tax more to borrow more to inflate more
      <,,> is going to lead to an economy losing ground but it's up to
      a government as to whether or not <,> it acts on the advice

  <WSC#DGI072:0125:RR>
      advice can be tendered <,> <&>3:00</&>

  <WSC#DGI072:0130:RR>
      that's not the issue

  <WSC#DGI072:0135:RR>
      the issue is whether or not a government chooses to act <,> on
      either advice or on its own instinct

  <WSC#DGI072:0140:RR>
      i can tell you the instinct of this government is that we are
      going to call a halt to those policies that have bankrupt this
      country and our instinct is to govern for growth

  <WSC#DGI072:0145:IM>
      but how many members of the government are with you on this one
      minister

  <WSC#DGI072:0150:IM>
      there seems to be a great deal of dissent

  <WSC#DGI072:0155:IM>
      <{1><[1>four</[1> of them have crossed the <{2><[2>floor</[2>

  <WSC#DGI072:0160:RR>
      <[1>there there</[1></{1>

  <WSC#DGI072:0165:RR>
      <[2><.>th</.> there</[2></{2> there there seems to be <,> a good
      deal of media hype

  <WSC#DGI072:0170:RR>
      i mean i just look at the hype before the budget huge amount of
      fear mongering <,>

  <WSC#DGI072:0175:RR>
      it was such that when i walked into the media lockup that
      occurred for five and a half hours before the budget was
      presented there was sort of this this overwhelming er reaction
      from the media saying hey this looks fair it sounds fair it is
      fair and it was the media that wanted to concentrate on the
      niggling negatives and <&>4:00</&> whipping up the hype

  <WSC#DGI072:0180:RR>
      <{><[>you</[> don't get good government out of hype

  <WSC#DGI072:0185:IM>
      <[>now <O>voc</O></[></{>

  <WSC#DGI072:0190:IM>
      are four backbenchers crossing the floor mere niggling negatives
      but what why is there so much dissent within your own government
      <{><[>on this issue missus richardson</[>

  <WSC#DGI072:0195:RR>
      <[><.>th</.> <.>th</.> <,> well</[></{> there is not so much
      dissent

  <WSC#DGI072:0200:RR>
      the government has secured support for its measures

  <WSC#DGI072:0205:RR>
      that's what you would expect

  <WSC#DGI072:0210:RR>
      we don't have a mindless two four two rule where everybody has
      to march into the same lobby but you look where the centre of
      gravity if you like of the government lies

  <WSC#DGI072:0215:RR>
      there is huge backbench commitment <,> to the <,> budget

  <WSC#DGI072:0220:RR>
      there is huge cabinet commitment to the budget

  <WSC#DGI072:0225:RR>
      in fact it was the most democratically written budget in the
      country's history and is the sounder for it

  <WSC#DGI072:0230:IM>
      does it concern you at all though that backbenchers people like
      michael laws are speaking out publicly

  <WSC#DGI072:0235:IM>
      they're obviously unhappy with various measures in the budget

  <WSC#DGI072:0240:RR>
      oh it's entirely predictable <,> er that as the prime minister
      puts it the familiar few <&>5:00</&> will want to have their say

  <WSC#DGI072:0245:RR>
      it's a democracy but they haven't prevailed

  <WSC#DGI072:0250:IM>
      let's have a look at some of the letters before we go to the
      talkback calls

  <WSC#DGI072:0255:IM>
      hazel anderson of ashburton er along with er roberta macdermott
      of waimate and others <,> are putting the question for the
      thousands of married women

  <WSC#DGI072:0260:IM>
      she wants to ask you ruth richardson why it is that married
      women superannuitants who have worked unpaid all their lives in
      the house bringing up families and doing all the unpaid
      charitable and community work which married women in paid work
      are unable to do things like creches kindergartens raising funds
      for plunket meals on wheels <,> er hospital visiting that kind
      of thing why it is that when these people who can never retire
      from household chores reach the age of g r i entitlement
      national superannuation they receive some money they can call
      their own for the first time in their lives money they don't
      have to account for and they well deserved in in her view

  <WSC#DGI072:0265:IM>
      now under this new joint income testing if their husbands have a
      modest income from savings prudently invested for retirement
      these women are <&>6:00</&> deprived of their g r i payments

  <WSC#DGI072:0270:IM>
      hazel anderson and others ask do you think this is fair

  <WSC#DGI072:0275:RR>
      yes i do think it's fair because we have decided that the family
      is to be the basis for all of our welfare decisions and i think
      that's what new zealand would want

  <WSC#DGI072:0280:RR>
      i mean if you take hazel <.>an</.> and her friends they have
      lived and operated as a family

  <WSC#DGI072:0285:RR>
      because he has been working she has been able to make a huge and
      significant contribution that so many women up and down this
      country make in the cause of voluntary services but they have
      acted and operated as a family and therefore when it comes to
      looking at the means of the family it is artificial in the
      extreme suddenly to divorce them <,> for the purposes of income
      assessment

  <WSC#DGI072:0290:RR>
      er we look at the reality

  <WSC#DGI072:0295:RR>
      the reality is that most of us have the happiness of a family
      base

  <WSC#DGI072:0300:RR>
      most of us pool our income <,> as a family and therefore that is
      the proper basis upon which we could should make an <&>7:00</&>
      assessment in respect of income available to a family

  <WSC#DGI072:0305:IM>
      but a lot of people retain their separate incomes as well

  <WSC#DGI072:0310:IM>
      er ruth allen of ponsonby says that she's a recipient of g r i
      and she has a small parttime job

  <WSC#DGI072:0315:IM>
      she's recently remarried and her husband has considerably more
      money and assets than herself

  <WSC#DGI072:0320:IM>
      she points out we have separate estates separate bank accounts
      but pay all expenses from a joint account fed with equal amounts
      of money by each of us

  <WSC#DGI072:0325:IM>
      she asks how do i stand as the poorer income spouse compared
      with the high income spouse in the matter of means testing

  <WSC#DGI072:0330:IM>
      does she have the option to be means tested independently

  <WSC#DGI072:0335:RR>
      no that family will be assessed as a family unit because that's
      how they operate

  <WSC#DGI072:0340:RR>
      how they choose internally within that family unit to divvy up
      their income and and who controls what i mean that's for them

  <WSC#DGI072:0345:RR>
      that that that's not for the for the state to trespass into that
      matter

  <WSC#DGI072:0350:RR>
      we stand outside the family unit and a family can be you know
      many different compositions and we we just look at how that
      <&>8:00</&> unit has operated and it operates as a unit that has
      income available to it and so for the purposes of looking at a
      family that has substantial means compared to say with the low
      income working family that we wanted to to benefit in terms of
      lower costs of going to the doctor when we had to make those
      choices we chose <,> to advantage the lower income family and to
      say to the higher income family however they shared their wealth
      you can indeed make a contribution to the recovery of this
      country

  <WSC#DGI072:0355:IM>
      oh <.>th</.> that kind of logic suggests to some people that
      they would be better off to divorce and er blow all their
      savings

  <WSC#DGI072:0360:IM>
      a a letter from er mister hughes of whangarei says why have
      married people been discriminated against

  <WSC#DGI072:0365:IM>
      he gives an example of two single people living together and
      receiving national superannuation

  <WSC#DGI072:0370:IM>
      they're allowed eighty dollars a week extra income whereas a
      married couple are allowed only eighty dollars between them

  <WSC#DGI072:0375:IM>
      to me and to many others writes mister hughes this seems most
      unfair

  <WSC#DGI072:0380:IM>
      single people or those living in a de facto relationship
      <&>9:00</&> receive a benefit slightly more than either the
      married couple

  <WSC#DGI072:0385:RR>
      well <.>y</.> <.>y</.> your correspondent er raises an issue
      that perhaps has been the most frequently asked question and
      that is why are couples <,> given only the same amount of
      allowable earnings before their benefit starts to reduce as
      single people but just clear up one misconception before i
      answer that <,>

  <WSC#DGI072:0390:RR>
      people who live in the nature of a marriage are treated as if
      they were married so it's it's not a case of de factos getting
      away with it er and those of us who remain in a marriage <{><[>being
      penalised</[>

  <WSC#DGI072:0395:IM>
      <[>how are you going to</[></{> establish that though

  <WSC#DGI072:0400:RR>
      oh the department of social welfare makes those judgements all
      the time

  <WSC#DGI072:0405:RR>
      i mean you you you cannot have people artificially sort of
      organising their affairs and and er abusing the system
      accordingly but but take the the the substantive question which
      is why do you treat a single person on the same basis as a
      couple <,> <&>10:00</&>

  <WSC#DGI072:0410:RR>
      say you take two two brothers or um two sisters living together
      er in a household they will generally because they don't have
      that that close family relationship they will generally have
      their own cars

  <WSC#DGI072:0415:RR>
      they will generally have er their own responsibilities and the
      way in which er the welfare system has administered income tests
      er and indeed all around the world i think except for australia
      er the single person is regarded as having er you know a a more
      substantial set of of er costs and and responsibilities than a
      couple living together <.>a</.> and in our welfare system we
      have never made a distinction between the allowable earnings for
      a couple and the allowable earnings for an individual

  <WSC#DGI072:0420:IM>
      but i mean brothers and sisters for example if they're living
      under the same house are are benefiting aren't they from that
      kind of family unit because they're sharing expenses so
      shouldn't they therefore be treated er at least <&>11:00</&> for
      accountancy purposes if you like by social welfare as a family

  <WSC#DGI072:0425:RR>
      well families are are complex things and and i guess there are
      some brothers living together that that can have more harmonious
      um living arrangements than others but but very often the the
      studies that have been done by the department of social welfare
      show that single people tend to lead single existences

  <WSC#DGI072:0430:RR>
      sure i mean they might share the breakfast and and the tea but
      often they have their own expenditure running their own cars
      running their own televisions you know running their own lives
      and that to a substantial extent er and the fair thing is to
      regard them as independent units

  <WSC#DGI072:0435:IM>
      er frank bailey of hamilton raises <.>a</.> another question
      about superannuation

  <WSC#DGI072:0440:IM>
      he says er that his firm's super scheme allowed him the option
      of taking out a generous slice as a lump sum and and to take a
      reduced pension

  <WSC#DGI072:0445:IM>
      do you confirm missus richardson that the sensible thing for him
      to do is to er take a world trip to squander his money basically
      in order that with a reduced pension he shall <&>12:00</&>
      receive a larger fraction of the state pension

  <WSC#DGI072:0450:RR>
      no i i don't regard that as wise advice because frank or or
      anybody else like him in that position will still always be
      better off if they have extra income available to them income
      that comes out of their private savings

  <WSC#DGI072:0455:RR>
      anybody <,> whose superannuation is reduced because it's abated
      is still always better off than if they relied wholly on
      guaranteed retirement income

  <WSC#DGI072:0460:IM>
      we'll take a break er at at the moment from the whole question
      of er superannuation

  <WSC#DGI072:0465:IM>
      we'll come back to it because we have many other letters that
      deal with that question but let's turn our attention now to
      education <&>12:45</&>
</I>
