Javier Olivera: “The (social security) reform is very much in favor of the AFPs”

Faced with the inexorable reform of the pension system, Javier Olivera outlines the proposal raised from the Economy Commissionwhich is directed towards the Plenary together with that of the Work Commission, the ad hoc and the one that they raise —when they agree to do so— from the Executive Branch.

-Where does the reform of the Economy Commission point?

—It goes very much in favor of the AFP. Everything is now converted to an AFP, changing its name, but it’s the same. It destroys the national system and the ONP turns it into a kind of public AFP. The logic of individuality leads her to everything. There will be no distribution system, which is serious. They have made it tailored to the AFPs.

—Regarding other countries, at what pace are we going?

—In the region, the reforms applied abandon individual accounts to bet on a mixed model. Congress is backing down and believes that individual accounts are the solution to the problems.

—And it is proposed that employers contribute nothing…

—Apart from that, it is serious that they do not explain how the current pensions of the national system and those that are to come will be financed. I think there are 6,000 million soles that were paid for pensions; but now by cutting the contribution to the public system, the State will have to assume these pensions.

—Any consequence of canceling the ONP?

—Destroying the ONP is going to mean a big mess for the public sector. Giving them 3% of the IGV for their own accounts is perverse logic because individualization leads to the payment of taxes, and the IGV is used to finance public services in health, education and security. Those who consume more will win.

—How to interpret this scenario?

—It goes against everything in the region and the debate to reduce gaps and inequalities. The only way to explain it is because there are lobbies and power groups that always get what they want in a country like Peru.

—There are three documents promoted by Congress and the Executive still delays. What does it reflect?

-He Executive power it is a passive entity right now. He doesn’t do much nor is he proactive. It is the most active Congress, but it does not mean that it does it well. It is unfortunate that there are three groups to reform the system when there should be a commission that works with the Executive at the same time. It is the Executive that should lead this reform and not leave it in the hands of discredited congressmen. They should not reform something as complex as pensions in this way. There should be consensus as in the Omonte commission.

-Where should the reform aim?

—The idea is to establish a mixed model. That pensions do not come from a single source like paid payroll work, but diversify them. The idea is that everyone has a universal pension, as in Pension 65, and one generated by the national distribution system in which there is a strong solidarity mechanism. Also a threshold with individual accounts where savings incentives are better aligned.

—A multipillar scheme?

—Yes, a multipillar system. The idea is to make it mixed and that there are different legs that make up the pension, not this strange thing that the Economy Commission did. That is not social security. The State is robbed to put the money in a few.

Do you think that private interests prevail?

—One sees the campaign of the AFP in the media, how they misinform and the result of this commission, and see that they walk in a similar way. One suspects. There are apparently conversations, it cannot be verified and it is difficult because there is no transparency system developed, but you can see the AFP campaign, the commission’s project, and you can see the coincidences.