Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2)

I am really pleased to see that there is a change of Minister in the chair for the debate on Part 1. We have the Hon John Tamihere, instead of the Hon Michael Cullen who seemed hell-bent on shutting down the debate, which was interesting last night. Because of that fiasco last night the Committee spent 35 minutes on debating points of order, because the Hon Michael Cullen would not allow the ACT member the Hon Richard Prebble to seek a call on the title of the bill. I find that really interesting.

My understanding is that Part 1, indeed, the whole bill, is supported by all parties in the House. So why is the Labour Government so hell-bent on shutting down debate? One would think that it does not want to pass this legislation that modernises the practice that no person should be disadvantaged—in this case whether, under the Government Superannuation Fund, a widow or widower of a pensioner would continue to receive the benefit if the widow or widower happened to remarry. I am surprised, because last night my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith believed that the title, Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2), did not clearly bring out the intention that is set out in Part 1. I believe that the Hon Richard Prebble should be entitled to seek a call on that.

The Hon Michael Cullen made an accusation towards my colleague the honourable Dr Lockwood Smith, who has spent 19 years in Parliament and has never been expelled from the Chamber. All he did was politely ask the Chair whether it was democratic to allow the ACT leader, the Hon Richard Prebble, to seek a call, because the title of the bill does not clearly spell out what is set out in Part 1—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could the member just talk about the bill.

The bill is about whether a widow or widower, who is entitled to receive the pension, should not be disadvantaged if he or she chooses to remarry. One would have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable action, but nothing is reasonable according to the minority Labour Government. I am still perplexed and hope that the Labour Minister the Hon John Tamihere is not still under a gagging order. I hope he will seek a call to explain to the public why the title of this legislation, which seems to be well received by the House, does not more clearly spell out the purpose that is set out in clause 3, which might enlighten people listening to this debate.

The National Party is supporting this bill. As it has been 20 years since the passage of the last bill, we think it is about time that society recognises that widows and widowers will remarry and seek another period of happy life. That should not jeopardise their entitlement under this bill to receive the pension. I hope this Minister, who does have a reputation of speaking his mind and making his own decisions, until his arm has been twisted, will take a call to explain further to the public the background that leads to the purpose of the bill.

I hope the Chairperson will also allow a few more calls from the various parties, because we are witnessing one of those rare occasions where most parties—and, I would say, probably all parties—will support this legislation. But it is important that the Minister seeks the call to explain the issue further, because last night some members raised a concern as to whether the investment is being made wisely.

It is very good to see the Hon. John Tamihere given a job in this Parliament by the Government. I know that the Hon. John Tamihere will clearly and comprehensively rebut all claims that he has been muzzled by the Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

We are discussing Part 1, and I have some questions to raise with the Minister. I am hoping that he will dispel all those outrageous claims people have been making that the Prime Minister has jumped down the throat of the second to highest ranking Māori in her caucus, and has muzzled him.

💬 Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I want to raise a serious point of order. We are speaking on Part 1. The status of various Cabinet Ministers has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. I sat here last night for 45 minutes, and I believe that the way this Committee behaved itself then—and I have spoken to many people today who listened on the radio—brought Parliament into disrepute. Madam Chair, today I would like you to rule specifically that people stick to the point, that they speak to the wording of the part, and that they do not stray again into extraneous matters.

That’s not even a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I tell Mr Hide that I am on my feet and ruling on the point of order. Would he please be silent. The member is quite correct. I ask the member now to speak to clauses 2 and 3, and to stick to those clauses.

Thank you for the ruling. We are discussing clauses 2 and 3. I would like the Minister to take the next call and answer these questions. With regard to clause 3, how many spouses currently have their annuities suspended? Could the Minister take a call when I sit down, prove to the world that he has not been muzzled, and answer the simple question: how many spouses currently have their annuities suspended? Would the Minister do that?

The second question is: what is the fiscal cost of this bill to the Crown? What will this bill cost the Government Superannuation Fund, and what will this bill cost the taxpayer? I would like the Minister in the chair—[Interruption] We now have an interesting situation. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Mr Copeland, who is very, very big about points of order, is now having a serious conversation right beside where I am trying to give my speech. I would like you to rule as Speakers rule—that that is unacceptable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to resume his seat. A lot of people were speaking, but the member should not be standing up.

💬 David Benson-Pope: It has to be within the order of the Committee, and it is provided for in the Standing Orders specifically for the whip of one party—in this case, myself—to discuss a procedural matter with a whip of another party. In this case it is Mr Copeland.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated. What we must ensure is that the conversation is not interfering with the speech of a member, and it was close to the member. Please continue.

I will recap my questions, which Mr Copeland who has come down to the Chamber does not seem to be interested in. Firstly, how many spouses have their annuities currently suspended? Second, what will be the cost to the taxpayer? Third, what will be the cost to the Government Superannuation Fund? I want the Minister in the chair, who is collecting ministerial pay and pretending he is a Minister, to stand in the Chamber and do his job while he is in the chair—that is, answer some questions.

Also, I would like the Minister in the chair to put these costs into some sort of context. What does the cost of providing for these spouses—which, I hasten to add, the ACT party is supporting—mean in relation to the costs to the Government Superannuation Fund, compared to what the fund has lost in the last 14 months? Under Michael Cullen, the economic wizard of New Zealand, the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million. The Minister, Dr Cullen, says that is not much; that is normal variance. Well, $380 million is a lot of money. Given that this bill has been lying around on the Order Paper for months and months, and now my colleague from United Future wants it to pass without debate it would seem, I would like the Minister, the Hon John Tamihere, who has boldly taken up the chair, to explain the cost of providing for these widows, compared to what Dr Michael Cullen has lost from the fund in that time. I guarantee that we could look after a lot of widows, and a lot of spouses who have remarried, when we compare it to the $380 million that has been lost. We know that the Hon John Tamihere has plenty of ideas. He is bursting with ideas. He is busting with ideas. I want him to take a call and say: “Why don’t we decentralise and devolve the Government Superannuation Fund to Māori?”. Is it a good idea to devolve it to housing for Māori?

I refer to clauses 2 and 3. Did that Minister, when he was at the Cabinet table discussing this provision, talk about his bold initiatives and ideas? Or do we have a case of a Minister who is a lion out in the electorate, well away from the ninth floor, well away from the Cabinet room, but not prepared to speak in this Chamber?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech, but there are two points with regard to the point of order exchanges that have occurred that I want to remind the Committee of.

Firstly, Mr Copeland raised a point of order with regard to relevance. I think it is appropriate at this stage to remind the Committee that when members raise points of order of that nature, they must be seen not to challenge the Chair. It is your prerogative alone, as Chair, to decide whether the member is relevant, and it is your prerogative alone to draw that to the attention of the member and the Committee. The second point I want to make is with regard to the issue that was raised by the senior Government whip, and that is the matter of exchange between whips particularly. Although it is true that we must take care to ensure we do not interfere with other speeches as we are carrying out our duties as whips in the Parliament, there is a longstanding convention that whips acting in that capacity are unseen. So it is important that that convention remains, because we do have duties that are peculiar and particular to the Parliament and the running of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. I think those points have been covered. The member raised a correct point of order.

I take pleasure in speaking to Part 1. Whenever New Zealand First members look at legislation, we look at it in a very balanced and sensible way, as we always have. As I look at the bill and listen to some of the speeches—I listened to Roger Sowry last night, and to Pansy Wong and some others—I have to say that I think they are missing the purpose of the bill. I really have to make that point. This bill is not a massive and controversial piece of legislation that the Government is trying pass under our noses. As we are speaking to Part 1, I would like the read out the purpose clause, but before I do that I do want to remind members that New Zealand First is a strong advocate for the fund to have more investment in New Zealand. Everybody knows that. We have even got a press release about it.

💬 Simon Power: What is the purpose?

We have even got a press release about how we should invest more in New Zealand, but this is the purpose of the bill—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No, it’s not.

Dr Lockwood Smith wants to be all smart about it, but if he would just listen to people who want to speak on the bill—[Interruption] Pansy Wong is saying that I should speak to the bill. What did she talk about? Absolutely nothing! That just shows the substance of the National Party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to clauses 2 and 3.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As a new member, I do appreciate your guidance. The purpose of the bill is to remove inequities in treatment between members of the old schemes of the Government Superannuation Fund and the new schemes. That is pretty basic. One good point that Pansy Wong did make last night was that time had moved on. [Interruption] If Dr Lockwood Smith is calling for me to speak to the bill, I can tell him that I definitely am speaking on the bill. Pansy Wong, as I remember, was talking about the difference in treatment between the members of the old schemes of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the new schemes. The commentary on the bill states: “The purpose of the bill is to remove inequities in the treatment between members of the old schemes of the Government Superannuation Fund (GSF) and the new schemes. The bill seeks to remove an inequity in the treatment of widows and widowers with effect from 1 July 2002.” Time has moved on. There has been a need for us to update the legislation, as it were. I am glad to hear that other parties are supporting this bill. New Zealand First, as I have always said, supports good legislation and opposes bad legislation. We think that this is good legislation.

💬 Simon Power: What’s it about?

Does Simon Power think that this is good legislation or bad legislation?

💬 Simon Power: What’s it about?

No—I am on my feet. I ask him to tell me whether he thinks that this legislation is good or bad. He does not know. All he has is a question. He probably will not speak on this bill. I do not think that that member heard me when I said what the purpose of the bill is. He is asking me to tell him about the bill. If the member had listened he would have heard what I said about the bill. That just goes to show the substance of the National Party. Simon Power really wants me to spell it out to him—specifically about Part 1. There must be something I do not know because I thought he had been here for at least one term before I was.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise with some trepidation to speak on Part 1 because when I was speaking on the title, only last night, I managed to be evicted from this Chamber for the first time ever in 19 years in this Parliament. So I fear this bill may bring me bad luck, but despite that nervousness I will do my best to address Part 1.

Part 1 covers the commencement and the purpose of the bill. The commencement clause is interesting because, normally, the commencement date indicates a little bit about the Government’s legislative programme. What is interesting is that the commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” What is interesting about that clause is that it shows that the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles. The Government has no idea when this bill is going to come into force—none whatsoever. What is more, the fiscal cost of this bill gets greater every week that it does not come into force because the bill goes back to July 2002. So the estimated cost of the back-pay, shall we say, gets greater with every week that goes by. The Government has no idea when it will get this bill through the Parliament—the bill demonstrates that quite clearly. The Government’s legislative programme is in a shambles. The Government cannot specify a date when the bill is to come into force, so it just says that that will be on the day after the date on which the bill receives the royal assent. That is a way of saying: “We haven’t got a clue, and that’s the only safe way to put it.” That is the first thing I would say in respect of Part 1. Clearly, it demonstrates that the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles.

The other clause in Part 1 is clause 3, “Purpose”, which is, I think, what my colleague from Rodney, Mr McNair from New Zealand First, was trying to describe—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do apologise for interrupting the honourable member on his feet, but throughout Craig McNair’s speech, and now during Dr Lockwood Smith’s speech, a conversation has been going on between two MPs. It is not a short conversation; it has gone on for some time, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member himself was speaking quite loudly. Indeed, I nearly called for order when Mr McNair was speaking, so I suggest that the member refrain from raising those sorts of points of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member be seated. I will not entertain spurious points of order. I am warning the member now.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. What I want you to do is point out to members that if they are going to engage in a long conversation—and successive Speakers have ruled on this—they should go into the lobby. I am not actually complaining, but it is very hard to hear. The conversation has gone on now through two speeches, and I think it is quite within the rules for the Chair to point that out.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. There were several conversations going on, including his own, as I pointed out.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. May I suggest that you ask those members who are having lengthy conversations to have them outside the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, certainly. They are aware of that.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. If it is a point of order on what I have ruled on—

💬 Rodney Hide: No it is not. It is a point about consistency. I raised precisely that point of order. You did not rule in my favour. I know that Mr Dail Jones is probably more eloquent than I am and probably has more legal training than me, but he raised the point of order and you accepted it. What is going on?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member is raising trifling points of order, and he will desist.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Clearly, the purpose clause does change the Government’s fiscal position because it provides the annuity to be paid to spouses after they remarry. It means that the old arrangements under the 1956 Act become consistent with the amendments that were made when the new schemes were brought in in 1985.

I do have a question for the Minister, and I want him to answer the question that my colleague Rodney Hide from ACT asked him. The commentary on the bill has not spelt out the fiscal costs. There clearly is a fiscal cost. Most members support the bill, but we deserve to know what the fiscal cost is. I expect the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, to inform us of the fiscal cost. We know that he is in the chair because he is being punished. He is being punished for being a naughty boy and for saying things that the one who is not to be questioned—the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark—does not approve of. We know that.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We have already been down that road once this afternoon. Those comments are irrelevant to the part of the bill that is under discussion and need to be ruled out of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: Madam Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I do not need any assistance. The member will keep to the issues in the part being debated.

💬 Rodney Hide: Madam Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I do not need any assistance. Please be seated. It is my decision whether to accept a contribution to a point of order, and I am not accepting your contribution to this point of order. Please be seated.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes. It is quite appropriate to be asking the Minister in the chair questions when—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. Please be seated.

💬 Rodney Hide: Well, what’s your ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. The member is continuing to challenge the Chair. The member has been warned. The member will now leave the Chamber.

💬 Rodney Hide: How long for?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There will be no further comments on rulings I have made. The member will leave the Chamber until 10 to 6.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: If one were to read the purpose of this bill, one would find that it has a fiscal cost associated with it. My colleague whom you have just demanded leave the Chamber asked the Minister, two speeches ago, to tell us what—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member be seated please. It is against the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings for a member to refer to my ruling that a member withdraw from the Chamber. Please continue.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: My huge apologies, Madam Chairperson. The fact is that my colleague asked the Minister, two speeches ago, to inform us of the fiscal cost of the purpose of this bill. A closure motion was moved before the Minister had even responded to Rodney Hide. Why is the Minister refusing to answer that question? Is it because the Prime Minister has muzzled him? Does he not have a note from the Prime Minister telling him what he can say on this bill?

If he continues to refuse to answer questions on the bill, the only conclusion we can come to is that he has been muzzled by the Prime Minister and therefore will not answer our questions. When a fiscal cost is associated with the purpose of a bill, we are entitled to have that answer from the Minister in the chair. I want the Hon John Tamihere to tell us whether he is allowed to answer questions on this bill or whether we are just wasting our time. Does he have the Prime Minister’s approval to speak on this matter, or has she forbidden him to speak on this matter? If the Prime Minister does not allow John Tamihere to speak on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2), he should get out of the chair and let into the chair a Minister who will answer our questions and does have the approval of the Prime Minister to talk on this issue. It is not within the procedures of this Committee for the Minister to ignore valid questions. Sure, the Minister can ignore stupid questions, but a question about the fiscal cost of the purpose of this bill is a perfectly valid question. The fiscal cost is not mentioned and is not in the commentary on the bill. If members read the commentary on the bill they will see that it tells us how many people might be involved, and how many children might be involved, but there is no estimate of the fiscal cost. It should be in the commentary on the bill. It is a fair and valid question for that Minister to answer.

I move, That the question be now put.