Mr Peters, as is his way, is disputing many parts of the overpayment, which he has admitted and repaid. Reports of $18,000 were exaggerated, he says. He is considering releasing his correspondence with the Ministry of Social Development to show there was nowrongdoing.
Those who have watched Mr Peters’ long and somewhat fraught political career will not be holding their breath waiting for a definitive answer one way or another. It is not the way of the MP who is one of the last members in Parliament to qualify for the gold-plated retirement scheme which was ditched by a former Labour administration.
He says he declared he was in a de-facto relationship with partner Jan Trotman when he applied for superannuation. It was only after Ms Trotman applied for her superannuation the ministry discovered payments to Mr Peters were too high.
The ministry’s website shows single people living alone are entitled to $780.40 after tax a fortnight. A single person sharing gets $720.36 and married, civil or de-facto couples, where both partners qualify, receive $600.30 each. Where only one partner qualifies, that person receives $570.66.
But there are other payments which can come into it. Some people qualify for living alone allowances, others for rent subsidies and help with medical expenses.
Mr Peters would be wise to make available the correspondence to ensure he did not receive any of those extra benefits since he started receiving superannuation in 2010.
Mr Peters said he never realised the error because his payments were well below the amount which his married friends were receiving.
The matter apparently came to light just before former Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei made her confession about receiving benefit payments to which she was not entitled. Ms Turei eventually resigned from the co-leadership of the party after damning details were made public about the relationship she had with her child’s father and a grandparent.
While the overpayment to Mr Peters may seem trivial, he is, and has been for many years, a so-called expert on superannuation. Mr Peters campaigned for compulsory superannuation, a campaign he lost resoundingly.
If Mr Peters, also a former treasurer, thinks the issue is complicated, how does that leave the many thousands of New Zealanders receiving superannuation? Surely this will leave some wondering if they have been over-paid or, for that matter, under-paid. If they are not receiving their full entitlements, then they should. And if they have received an overpayment, such as that received by Mr Peters, has the ministry investigated them?
Superannuation is always a divisive issue, even more so during an election.
The Opportunities Party would means-test New Zealand Super, meaning retirees earning more than $50,000 would not get any additional income from superannuation.
The National Party made a mistake once of means testing superannuation. It was promptly thrown out of office and the party vowed to never do that again.
Some see it as an issue of fairness.
According to the Household Labour Force survey, 144,000 people aged over 65 are in work, 22% of all people aged over 65. That is up from 7% in 1999 and 15% in 2007. In effect, people able to work are receiving two incomes.
Mr Peters may have inadvertently opened the door on a discussion about the means testing of superannuation. Although having universal superannuation is a noble aim, a broader discussion needs to be held about who should be eligible. The best the Government can do is signal a lift in the retirement and eligibility age to 67, well into the future.
In the meantime, Mr Peters will be wise to not be pedantic and just release the details to show there is, and never was, anything untoward about his higher superannuation payments.
