New Zealand Superannuation and retirement income Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Social Development and Employment: I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill repeals the Retirement Income Act of 1993, and transfers the provisions relating to the Retirement Commissioner to what is to be known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. Any reference to the accord on retirement income policies will not be transferred. The accord has fallen into disuse since 1998, and many of the processes established by the accord are no longer followed. The enactment of the New Zealand Superannuation Act in 2001 provides a new opportunity for political parties to indicate their support for retirement income policies, and supersedes the need for the accord provisions currently set out in the Retirement Income Act.

The continued need for 6-yearly periodic reviews has also been questioned. The most recent periodic report was completed by the Periodic Report Group 2003. However, the Government has acknowledged the value of retaining independent reviews, and the bill will require the Retirement Commissioner to undertake 3-yearly reviews of retirement income policies.

The bill renames the principal Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, as this name better reflects the overall purpose of the Act with the inclusion of the Retirement Commissioner’s functions. The bill ensures that the retirement income policy framework more closely reflects the current environment, and consolidates key retirement income policies under the one Act.

I thank members of the Social Services Committee and the officials for their work on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Tempted as I am to fill the 10-minute slot provided at this point, I will just re-emphasise the points made by my colleagues during the second reading and Committee stages. The National Party will support the third reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, and I reiterate the main point that was made by our party during the passage of this legislation—that is, although the bill removes the requirement for 6-yearly periodic reports, it inserts a requirement for 3-yearly reports, and that is something we as a party found to be satisfactory. Initially, we were concerned that mandatory reporting had been removed altogether, but the Social Services Committee saw fit to include a 3-yearly mandatory reporting phase. On that basis, together with the other elements of the bill that the Associate Minister has so eloquently described this evening, the National Party will support this bill through its third reading.

In addressing the third reading on behalf of the ACT party, I say that we, too, support this non-controversial legislation. I reiterate my comments in the debate on the second reading stage in relation to members from other parties who stood up and said that superannuation should be a non-controversial issue. Vis-à-vis New Zealand First and United Future, I would like to record in the House my hope that, because it is election year, they will stick to what they said in terms of superannuation being non-controversial, and abandon any plans they have, or have already voiced, that would exploit retired people and make promises to them that clearly cannot be kept. [Interruption] Well, that is what United Future does all the time. Its members cannot wait for their turn, so they make cross bench interjections. It is absolutely impossible to continue with this speech—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member on the cross bench to Speaker’s ruling 57/5. There are to be no interjections across the cross benches, because of the effect they have on the microphone.

It just illustrates my point graphically. Other parties say that the issue of retirement income will not be controversial, but they cannot resist turning it into a political football, because it is election year and because they are trying to outbid other parties in terms of what they can contribute.

United Future claims that it was Dr Bernie Ogilvy who wrote this superannuation policy, with its cradle-to-grave, individual accounts, and compulsory savings features. Well, the cradle-to-grave idea goes back further than Sir Roger Douglas, but if the United Future members look at individual accounts—

💬 Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept the ruling you have just given—that we should not interject across the benches—but when the speaker continually makes references to us in her speech instead of sticking to the bill, it is necessary for me to correct her errors. I think—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. The reality is that Speaker’s ruling 57/5 is quite clear, and I suggest that the member look at it. If he is not happy with that, he can perhaps take another seat in the Chamber somewhere where he is not directly affecting the microphone.

I recommend that that member read Unfinished Business by Sir Roger Douglas, which I think was published in about 1994, and in which he first wrote about individual savings accounts to be opened when children were born. It is a very complicated system, has a lot of merit, but needs a lot of careful thought.

I reiterate that the ACT party supports this legislation. We are pleased a provision has been kept for reviews to be undertaken every 3 years, which will allow us to keep up to date with what is going on with regard to retirement savings. There is a lot of debate about whether New Zealanders do actually save for their retirement, and whether they should put their savings into their homes. There are a lot of myths about, and if we did away with those reviews we would severely jeopardise the chance to have informed debate on the issues. ACT supports this legislation.

Bill read a third time.