New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. I want to start by acknowledging the encouragement and support of the Attorney-General. He is clearly keen to see this bill pass through the House.

This bill implements some changes to Part 2 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. These are changes related to the activities of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. It is the manager and administrator of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I just want to remind the House about why the activities of the fund might matter. It was set up under the previous Government by Dr Michael Cullen with an elegant legislative scheme and funding formula designed to allow New Zealand to pre-fund some of the costs of national superannuation—in fact, pre-funded to the extent that tax rates would hold steady while the population aged. In that sense it is a form of savings for today’s taxpayers, where they will avoid tax increases in the future.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is getting rather large. Even though the Government has not made contributions to it since we have been in Government, over the last 5 years—

💬 Andrew Williams: Why not?

—because we were not willing to borrow to make contributions to the fund—it has made fairly significant returns. Even in retrospect, the Government would not have changed its view about that issue. Because of the returns, it has now built up to a $25 billion fund.

It is part of an ongoing process of change in the taxpayers’ balance sheet. In fact, if you add up all the managed funds on the taxpayers’ balance sheet, the New Zealand Government balance sheet, it is well north of $50 billion, and before too long it will reach $60 billion. The popular perception—I have to say, cultivated by the Opposition—is that taxpayers own lots of businesses that generate lots of profits. That might have been the case in the past. Just to give a sense of the relative size of these things, the electricity generators all rolled up together may be worth, say, $10 billion. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is 2½ times the value of all the electricity generators put together. In fact, it is a pretty similar size to ACC. Over time the Superannuation Fund and ACC will continue to grow.

Our balance sheet is becoming increasingly dominated by shares and bonds owned by the Crown. So it is becoming much more of a fund manager’s balance sheet and much less of a business owner’s balance sheet. In fact, the proportion of it that is devoted to businesses is probably down to somewhere around 4 or 5 percent now. The proportion of it that is managed funds is growing pretty rapidly, and that which is property holdings—roads, hospitals, schools—is pretty steady.

Over time the efficiency and the governance of these Government-controlled fund managers is going to become more and more significant to the economy and, certainly, to the taxpayers’ balance sheet. That is why there is an ongoing programme of work looking at the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of not only the New Zealand Superannuation Fund but also the other large funds—ACC, the Government Superannuation Fund, the National Provident Fund, and, the small one in the litter, the Public Trustee. So there is a focus on whether we have got the structures right there, because, for instance, lower costs over 20 or 30 years can make a big difference to the return.

The way these funds are organised to manage the much more significant risks they are taking is pretty critical to taxpayers. The flip side of these high returns of recent years in the Superannuation Fund is high risk. The reason they make big returns at the moment is that they are making fairly risky investments. There will be years where they make zero or negative returns. That is almost certain in a long-term fund.

I would have to say, though, that in this case the previous Government set up this fund in about as sensible a way as you could for a Government-owned entity. It has got an independence that we respect, that I think the whole of Parliament respects, and that is particularly important around its investment policies. The biggest risk to the taxpayer around this fund is that one day politicians decide to override the legislation in order to instruct the fund how to invest.

The fund follows theories of diversification. A substantial part of its investment is outside of New Zealand. In fact, the majority of its investment is outside of New Zealand. Essentially, it takes in cash generated by New Zealand households and businesses and it invests that in offshore equity and debt markets. It is one of the reasons I do not get too worried about the fact that New Zealand borrows money overseas, because it is not that difficult, particularly if it is matched by investment overseas. It also gives another aspect to the discussions about foreign investment in New Zealand. The New Zealand Government is a fast-growing foreign investor in other countries, and I would expect that that investment is respected by the sovereign Governments that run those countries, if we do not find ourselves, as investors in Australia, the US, and the UK, the victims of arbitrary and populist policies about being a foreign investor.

So the efficiency with which the New Zealand Superannuation Fund operates is going to matter and become increasingly significant. The bill here focuses on one reasonably significant issue and then a number of other minor changes, but they have all been sought by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. The current legislation prevents the guardians from having control of an entity. That was a soundly conceived protective measure. A fund of this size could easily control a significant part of the New Zealand Exchange. Even now it probably owns a significant proportion of it.

Clause 7, inserting new section 59A, of this bill allows the Superannuation Fund to pursue the global best practice where it can control entities that are formed “for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing investments of the Fund”. It does not relax the prohibition on control of New Zealand entities, but it does allow it to run the kinds of investment entities that are quite common for large fund managers. The guardians will get added flexibility, and we would hope—in fact, the reason we are making the change is that they believe, and we have taken their advice—that it will allow them to structure and access investments more efficiently. That will lead to greater returns for given quantities of risk that the guardians take with our investment.

There are a number of other smaller changes—for instance, enabling the guardians to delegate the power to appoint custodians and investment managers to those who manage funds on behalf of the guardians, so they do not have to do it all themselves, and to grant powers of attorney in respect of the management of the fund. These things have been looked at in some real detail, and it is considered that they will help the fund to act more efficiently. There are also some references here to the nature of the fund, in order to clarify them and to remove ambiguity about the nature of the fund. That is, the legislation explicitly states that the fund is not a separate entity of the Crown. There is potential for material gains from this, and I commend the bill to the House.

I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has finally come around to supporting what is colloquially known as the Cullen fund, because at the time it was implemented he called it a “dog”. That is a quote. The New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill is supported going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee by the Labour Party. It will further the good management of the Superannuation Fund.

But I would like to remind New Zealanders that it is good if occasionally, when it comes to some of these big decisions, the National Government could get things right with foresight rather than with hindsight. We heard the Minister of Finance say that with hindsight maybe it should have invested over the—

💬 Hon Bill English: No, no, I didn’t say that. I said even with hindsight I wouldn’t have.

Even with hindsight he would not have. With hindsight he would not have taken the gains either. That is even more stupid. My goodness! I did not think I heard him right when he said that the first time. The reason the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has done very well recently is that, actually, sovereign funds can take a very long-term perspective and they can invest in a countercyclical manner in a way that a lot of other funds cannot. A lot of other funds, when things are going down in sharemarkets, have rules that say they have actually got to reduce their weighting to a particular sharemarket because they have to run their fund in a way that is proportionate to different size asset classes. A sovereign wealth fund like this Superannuation Fund can take a countercyclical view and say that, actually, this is the time when some of this lemming-like behaviour, where everyone follows each other off a cliff, is wrong, and they can take a long-term view and go in the opposite direction.

Sometimes I would like the Minister of Finance to manage these Crown assets with foresight a bit better. Solid Energy—there are lots of those movies Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. The next sequel was probably going to be “Honey, I Shrunk Another Government SOE—I Ruined It”. What happened with Solid Energy was that the Minister of Finance, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, and the Minister of Energy and Resources collaborated to ruin it—to ruin it. They turned Solid Energy from an award-winning, profitable company into a dog. They ruined it. They told Solid Energy, in the face of rising concern about the importance of environmental emissions like carbon, in the face of everyone except Don Elder and the National Party and Gerry Brownlee knowing that there was not any near-term future in lignite to liquids, that it should develop its lignite plans. The Minister of Finance, Bill English—because it was in his own electorate—proudly stood on the end of a spade, turning the first sod from a lignite briquette plant. That was also a dog.

This is the same Minister of Finance who wrote to Solid Energy when Gerry Brownlee was saying “Expand, please. We love coal.” “Sexy Coal” was the self-titled video that Gerry Brownlee had the audacity to put up on his own website prior to the 2008 election. They encouraged Solid Energy to expand. They then wrote to Solid Energy and said “Please take on more debt on your balance sheet.” Mr John Palmer, the chair of the company at the time, came back and said “It is not prudent to carry these high levels of debt.” The Government said “Do it anyway.”, and then it said “Please pay us higher dividends.” So there was more expansion into risky coal, more debt, and higher dividends. Then what happened? It has got a dog now.

The Government’s silliness does not end there. The Minister of Finance said that the Government is very proud of the way ACC is going. ACC is an institution we should be proud of. It is now just about fully funded in terms of its tail, because successive Governments—

💬 Hon Bill English: Got rid of by a Labour Government.

No, actually, that is not correct. No, that is not correct, Mr English. The prior Labour Government invested to fully fund the tail, a measure that was proposed by the prior National Government—it might have been Bill English, was it, or Bill Birch, his predecessor—carried through by the Labour Government, and now carried on by the National Government. We all agree that we should fully fund the tail of ACC. But then what else has National done? Well, actually, National got a report from ACC last year—it was last year—saying it should drop levies because it was over-collecting in respect of current costs and over-providing more than a fair amount in respect—

💬 Maggie Barry: What’s this got to do with superannuation?

It is actually the ACC pool that the Minister was referring to, but Maggie Barry does not understand that. So what did it do? Did it take that advice? No, it did not. National ripped off New Zealanders by overcharging them for ACC fees in their registration and petrol so that it could construct a surplus—by taking money off people for ACC levies—when it had given tax cuts, 40 percent of which went to the top 10 percent of income tax earners and could not be afforded.

What else has National done wrong? I will tell you something else it has done wrong. It has allowed the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest in infrastructure. This is something that Michael Cullen prevented but the current Government allows. It allows the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest in infrastructure assets, some of which used to be funded off the Crown balance sheet. These are things like public-private partnerships, which this Government is keen on in schools or in respect of some roading projects. What is the effect of that in the future? In the old days that would have been funded off the Crown balance sheet. Now some of that is off the Crown balance sheet—well, it is actually on the Crown balance sheet, but it is funded through public-private partnerships that involve private participants. In this context, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is a private participant.

So what happens when you roll forward 30 years and you start drawing down the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to pay for that bulge in superannuation costs? You have actually got to take the money back off the Government or out of the New Zealand economy, rather than actually having it set in a pool that does not suck it out. It is sort of taking one pot of money that should be available for New Zealand and saying that we can spend it for two purposes. I think we have to be very, very careful that we do not allow the Superannuation Fund to be used for the wrong investments.

Let us take what is happening in respect of the State-owned enterprises—the sales of the power companies. You know, until a year ago these were 100 percent New Zealand - owned, and any profit that was being taken from this incredibly cheaply produced hydro power was being—

💬 Hon Bill English: No, it isn’t. It’s not cheap.

He still does not understand that our hydro power is amongst the cheapest power to produce in the world. It is cheaper than nuclear.

💬 Hon Bill English: You’re wrong.

It is cheaper. The operating costs of hydro are very close to zero. You should read the First NZ Capital report on the Meridian Energy sale to understand it, if you have not already. What has happened over time is that because the cost of alternatives to hydro has risen and because the pricing model pays everyone the highest price that is bid prior to dispatch for that period, the price that is paid for hydro power has risen as the cost of alternatives, like gas, has gone up—when Māui gas ran out—and the cost of new alternatives to gas, like geothermal, is more expensive. Because of the pricing model that is applied to those more expensive sources of generation, it flows through to the price that is paid for hydro power—not to the cost of producing hydro power, but the price that is paid to the generators for it—and there has been an enormous lift in the amount of profit taken out of our public rivers. The dams have not changed; all that has changed is the amount of money that is being made out of public rivers.

We went along with that when it was being recycled by the Government into hip operations, educational services, the police, and the other things that Governments fund. But now the Government is privatising it, so the effect of that is it is privatising the value of our rivers for the benefit of the 2 or 3 percent in New Zealand who bought shares. This is another example of how this Government so plainly governs for the interests of the richest 2 or 3 percent in New Zealand while everyone else relatively languishes. That is going to be the election issue, is it not?

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Yes.

Yes, that is going to be the election issue—more of the same from National, where it lines the pockets of Rio Tinto, it favours the big end of town, and it serves the interests of the people who are almost wealthy, or vote Labour and get your fair share. That is the difference.

💬 Hon Bill English: Ha, ha!

That is right. That is the difference—40 percent of the income tax to the top 10 percent, National will not tax capital gains, $600 million of subsidies to the irrigation schemes, while it does not even pay for the public water that it uses to irrigate and lift its capital values.

This legislation is good legislation. It is good to see that the Minister finally realises that he was wrong to oppose the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in the first place. It is an institution that was created by Labour and we remain proud of it.

It is my pleasure to speak on this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. It is interesting that Mr Parker makes the claim: “Vote Labour and get your fair share.” It will be a fair share of not very much at all, but it will still be a fair share. The problem with Labour is that it is all about spreading the gains but not about actually making the money in the first place. It is the same party that has in its manifesto that we are all about equality of outcomes. How we are going to achieve that in today’s world without a high degree of force is beyond me. That, I think, is the essence of the problem that we have with the Labour Party at the moment. [Interruption] It is listed in Labour’s manifesto.

💬 Hon Bill English: That’s not their policy.

My understanding is that the introduction to the Labour Party’s policy platform, from David Parker himself, is going to guide the manifesto, when Labour is all about equality of outcomes. That means that everybody has got to have the same outcome, no matter whether they work hard, or do not work hard, or whether they are lucky or they are not lucky, or whether they are good at rugby or not good at rugby, or whether they have got five kids to five different parents—they are all going to have the same outcomes. You do not have to look too far in history to see that you can achieve that only through some very serious force.

But getting back to the first reading of this bill, its main purpose is to enable the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest more efficiently, and ultimately generate more return per unit of risk. This is important because the Superannuation Fund invests money on behalf of the Government, some $25 billion at the moment, and this will help to pay for the increased costs of superannuation in years to come. The long-term growth-orientated invested fund has about $25 billion in assets, including about $3.7 billion in New Zealand, but most of it is offshore. It is managed by the Crown entity the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. The Superannuation Fund, as we have heard, started in 2003 with $2.5 billion in cash, and since then it has returned about 9 percent a year and is a world-class sovereign wealth fund now standing at $25 billion. It constitutes about 40 percent of the Crown’s portfolio. [Interruption]

We hear members on the other side from New Zealand First say: “Oh well, if they are such great returns, why do we not borrow lots of money and put it into the fund?”. They do not seem to realise that there is a connection. The Government suspended its contributions in 2009 because, with fiscal deficits as they were, the Government debt was already increasing rapidly and it was imprudent to borrow more to invest in global investment markets.

I think most people understand that, in their own household budgets. You do not go and get your mortgage extended in order to invest on the stock exchange, because you know that certainly you have to pay your money back to the bank, regardless of what happens, but there is no guarantee that what you invest in the stock exchange will necessarily be the same amount as the money that you put in. You can lose money. That is how it works. There is no question that the Superannuation Fund has done a very good job of its investment, and it is to be commended absolutely.

This bill relaxes the control restrictions in section 59 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act to allow the guardians to control passive holding subsidiaries, which are described in the bill as fund investment vehicles. These changes will enable the fund to structure investments more efficiently and give them some more flexibility.

I think that makes sense, after the fund has been in existence for just slightly more than a decade. It will continue to be prevented from holding or taking substantial controlling interests in any underlying operating entity, such as through takeovers. We do not particularly want them running or controlling separate companies, but we do want them to have the ability to control passive holding subsidiaries. The fund has been seeking these, as a high priority, to enable them to do their best job for New Zealand and to give us the ability to offset some of the money that we will be spending on superannuation in years to come.

The income arising from the fund is included in the New Zealand tax base, and that is important. We do not want any particular tax treatment of this to be unusual. The bill amends the Income Tax Act 2007 so that any fund investment vehicle or companies in which interests are held by the guardians for the fund will not be subject to the exemption for public authorities, so that they can make their decisions based in a tax-neutral setting.

The bill also seeks to amend the powers that can be delegated by the board to the guardians. Currently, the Act provides that the board must not delegate any of the following powers: the power to grant a power of attorney, the power to appoint an investment manager, and the power to appoint a custodian. The bill proposes to remove these restrictions. The effect will be that the Crown Entities Act 2004 will apply in full.

I am very much looking forward to the submissions and the select committee process in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I am glad that the Labour Party members have indicated their support for this bill and I hope that together we will be able to work on this legislation and make sure that it is absolutely fit for purpose, as I am sure it is as introduced, and I look forward to that discussion. Thank you.

We saw that member Paul Goldsmith wind down as his speech went on. He started off quite enthusiastic. We were just having a discussion here about how we were actually feeling a little bit sorry for the member. He is the member who basically sacrificed a seat for that prima facie fraudster John Banks and, apparently, he is being asked to sacrifice it again. He is being asked to sacrifice it again for someone who is going to play “Dueling Banjos”—you know, the song from Deliverance, from the backwaters of Georgia—with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, as part of the National Party tune, is going to be playing “Dueling Banjos” with the inbred people from the ACT Party, or at least the people who want to sleep with their sisters and a number of other arrangements. One little bit of progress, I think, for the member is that if that was the sort of relationship with John Banks, politically it would be getting pretty close to necrophilia at this point.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: How many convictions does that member have? Two or three convictions.

Oh, many more than that—many more than that and proud of them. I was a member of the protest movement all over the place who stood up for his principles. I have convictions both of principle and from the police. The member knows that well. What I have not done is what that member has done and denied my own integrity—and denied my own integrity—the way that that member has time and time and time again through the last 30 years of his life. If that member wants to mix it up, I am prepared to mix it up with the person with the wonderful cousin. What a problem it is when families have to balance out and you get a member like that member, that young squealer over there, Finlayson, who acts like a pig and denies—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—his own conscience all over the place. What are we saying, Mr Assistant Speaker? He is allowed to interject on me, but I am not allowed to respond to him? He wants the protection of the Chair because he is not prepared to take it when he dishes it up. He is like Bill English in this area. We hear Bill English trying to defend the Government’s approach to the Superannuation Fund. I want to ask members opposite: what do they hope to raise from asset sales? $4.6 billion. What have they lost through not investing in the Superannuation Fund? $10 billion. The National Party has, through its mad policy on the Superannuation Fund, sacrificed $10 billion, which will have to be taken in future from the taxpayers of New Zealand. What National Party members are saying is that the New Zealand taxpayer has to take a $10 billion hit because they had a mad policy on superannuation, which meant that they stopped investing in it.

It is just a nonsense. We have got in the last 12 months a 27 percent—a 27 percent—return from the Superannuation Fund, and an average over its life of 9.55 percent. At the point where the Government was borrowing at 3.2 percent, it was turning down the alternative of getting a 9.55 percent return from the Superannuation Fund and 17 percent—17 percent—from the assets that it has sold. It claims to be a Government with knowledge of economic management. It claims—

💬 Maggie Barry: Running out of steam now, are you? Getting sadder by the moment. Wind it up.

Oh, Maggie Barry has had a long lunch again. Maggie Barry has had a long lunch yet again. We can hear it from here. Well, she is lucky they do not have breath tests on the outside of this place, because if a breath test was required, I think she would be blowing in the bag at the moment. In fact, I have got a machine up in my office and I challenge the member to use it. I have got a machine in my office and I challenge Maggie Barry to use it.

💬 Maggie Barry: Use it on yourself, Trev. You need all the help you can get, you bore.

Here we go again. We have got Maggie Barry again claiming to have economic credibility. A marginal gardener, a failed talk show host, and now she says she has got economic credibility in the National Party. Well, I think she might be right. I think she might be right. I think the way that National is going—

💬 Maggie Barry: Does Jane like this, does she?

Oh, there we go. That is an interesting approach from the member. That is an interesting approach from the member Maggie Barry. Maggie Barry, I will just let you know that I have got quite a long list. I have got quite a long list and if you want to go there, I am happy to go there as well. You want to go there, Maggie Barry? I am prepared to go there as well.

Let us get back to this particular bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, and the arrogance of the National Party members in this area of legislation. They claim to know a lot about the Superannuation Fund. They opposed it. They said it was wrong. They said it was wrong. What has this saved us so far? What has this saved us so far in future superannuation costs? It is about $14 billion. This Superannuation Fund has saved the taxpayers of New Zealand about $14 billion that they would otherwise pay in tax. The National Party members—I was going to say “to a man”, you know, old-fashioned—all of them, even the women, opposed it. Well, we would not expect anything else from Maggie Barry. They said it was wrong. They would rather have had tax cuts for their mates—people like John Key. What did he get? He got a $1 million a year tax cut—a $1 million a year tax cut.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What rubbish!

The member said “Rubbish!”. John Key does not deny it. John Key does not deny it and on $57 million worth of assets—any reasonable return. Sam Lotu-Iiga knows that John Key got a $1 million a year tax cut. Yes, he is nodding. He knows. Sam knows that that is what John Key got in tax cuts, and what National members would rather have done is to do that short-term approach of giving even bigger tax cuts to their mates and of getting bigger tax cuts for the richest people in New Zealand, rather than investing in the Superannuation Fund, which has already saved $14 billion of taxpayer liability in the future. They say they are economic wizards. I say they are economic failures.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. I think it is important to traverse briefly the history of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund was established by the Clark-Cullen Government in order to basically prepay, or to put some money aside to pay for part of, the cost of superannuation for the baby boomers as they went through their older years, when they would need support from the taxpayer in the form of superannuation. What this fund did, effectively, was take some of the surpluses that were generated during the 9 years of that Government, from 1999 to 2008, and put them aside as savings on behalf of the people of New Zealand.

It is important to note that the party currently in Government opposed every attempt to put money aside in order to pay for those future bills. The National Party at the time said the surpluses that were generated during those years should not be used to pay down debt or to put money aside to save for the future but, rather, should be given away as tax cuts. The current Prime Minister, John Key, and the current Minister of Finance, Bill English, are on the record as saying during those years that the surpluses that were generated in those three terms of Parliament from 1999 to 2008 should have been given away as tax cuts to upper-income earners, rather than saved or put away in the form of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Of course, the National Party was entirely wrong. It got it entirely wrong with regard to savings.

It is a simple fact that the parties that are now in Opposition—the Greens, New Zealand First, and Labour—supported Budgets that enabled those moneys to be put aside. So even though the National members now pride themselves, apparently, on being fiscal conservatives, in fact it is the exact opposite. The reality is the exact opposite of what is portrayed by the current Government.

The party currently in Government is consistent on one thing, which is that it wanted to give away money in tax cuts to the very upper end, so it opposed putting away money in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. It opposed paying down Government debt when it was in Opposition, and now that it is in Government, it runs very large deficits and has built up $50 billion - plus of Government debt. So National has been very consistent all through those 15 years in wanting more debt to go on the taxpayer and bigger tax cuts for upper-income earners. That has been its consistent position.

It should also be said that even though the Green Party supports the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, we do not support this bill. We do not support this bill fundamentally because what this bill does is give the New Zealand Superannuation Fund more flexibility to invest in maximised returns through the use of fund investment vehicles. Fund investment vehicles will enable the greater use of tax havens for tax efficiency. The Green Party takes the view, and has consistently taken the view, that it is the use of tax havens internationally that has undermined the ability of Governments around the world to raise the taxes they need to pay for the things we all value. Public health, public education, and all the other good things that Governments deliver do not come free. Someone has to pay for them.

What we have seen is that taxes have increasingly fallen on working people, and the ability of the Government to enforce taxes on large multinational corporations has increasingly declined. It has become harder and harder for Governments to force multinational corporations to pay their taxes. So, for example, we have seen some very famous cases recently with regard to Google and Facebook, where they are able to avoid paying their taxes through the use of tax havens. Unfortunately, what this bill does is enable the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to avail itself of the use of tax havens more than it does currently, and for that reason the Green Party will not be supporting this bill.

It seems to us that a Government fund like this—a sovereign wealth fund—should be setting an example. Rather than undermining, it should be setting an example that shows that it obeys tax laws and pays its taxes, and does not use tax avoidance measures such as are enabled by this bill in order to avoid paying its taxes.

If sovereign wealth funds like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund use these kinds of fund investment vehicles in order to avoid paying taxes, it then makes it very difficult for Governments to go to large multinationals like Google and Facebook and say to them: “We want you to stop using tax havens to avoid paying your share of taxes.” We know that when the large multinationals like Google, Facebook, and all the rest avoid paying their taxes, it is ordinary working people who end up having to pay more tax in order to fund the things we all want—those things like public health and public education. Tax, as they say, is the price of living in a civilised society. So if we want large multinationals to pay their fair share, it seems to me counter-intuitive that we would pass legislation that essentially facilitates a sovereign wealth fund—our very own New Zealand sovereign wealth fund, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—to use tax havens, and for that reason we will not be supporting the bill.

I would also say with regard to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that there are some very interesting opportunities opening up for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in forestry in New Zealand. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund has become a large player in the New Zealand forestry sector, and it is one of the strategic objectives of the Green Party—and also, I know, of the Labour Party—to have more value-add within the forestry sector. So having the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as a big player in the New Zealand forestry sector I think provides real opportunities for a new Government—as we are going to get on 20 September—to partner with the sector in order to work together to get value-add within the forestry sector.

Instead of simply exporting all our logs as raw logs, which is the current Government strategy, we believe that you can partner between the Government and the forestry sector. So having the Superannuation Fund engaged in the forestry sector on a large scale is, I think, a great strategic opportunity for New Zealand to work together to get much greater value-add within the forestry sector. I would also note the role of iwi organisations, who are also major players in the forestry sector now. So I think there is a very optimistic future where we could see a partnership between a new Government focused on New Zealand’s strategic opportunities working with the Superannuation Fund, as a big owner of forestry, and iwi forestry owners to add value within the forestry sector.

I would also note that with regard to retirement income, which is the other part of the title of this bill, the Green Party’s Solar Homes project is, of course, a very important part of retirement income. We know that many New Zealanders approaching the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation—65—are very interested in investing in solar photovoltaic panels in order to, basically, give them some protection against ever-rising electricity costs. We have seen that under this Government electricity prices have increased by 20 percent in 5½ years, so what we have seen from a lot of older New Zealanders who are approaching the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation—65—is that they want to provide themselves with some kind of protection against the ever-rising electricity prices that came out of the failed Max Bradford electricity model. So that is why the Greens’ Solar Homes project is all about providing some kind of support for New Zealanders, particularly those in that situation, as they enter their post-65 years and want to protect their retirement income.

In terms of retirement income, I would also note that for a lot of New Zealanders, owning their own home is a very important part of that. If you own your own home, you are in a much stronger position post your 65th year. If you own your own home, you are in a much stronger position than if you are still in the rental market. It is with some alarm that the Green Party has noticed the rapid decline in homeownership rates in New Zealand, which has been driven by the ever-escalating increase in prices. Of course, that increase in prices has been driven by the fact that we do not have a capital gains tax excluding the family home. We do not have a capital gains tax on investment properties in New Zealand. It is also being driven by the very high level of foreign interest in the New Zealand housing market. At least 12 percent of the Auckland demand side is now coming from offshore, and no doubt it is probably actually double that—much higher than that. That is driving prices out of the reach of ordinary people.

The result of that is that ordinary working people are struggling to be able to afford to buy their own homes. As they approach retirement—and this is going to happen further down the track—more and more people will find themselves not owning their own home, and that puts them in a more vulnerable position. That is why the Green Party and others have been supporting proposals to make housing more affordable. It is so that ordinary New Zealanders who are not millionaires like many in the National Party but are just people who make a contribution and work for a living can afford to buy a home and their families can afford to buy a home.

We need to make sure that housing is once again within the reach of working New Zealanders, so that is part of protecting the retirement income of New Zealanders. It is making sure that homeownership once more becomes affordable for New Zealanders and that electricity is affordable for New Zealanders, and I think it is very important that we deal with the tax havens so that it is not middle New Zealand that has to pay all the taxes, but multinational corporations pay their share as well. Thank you.

I rise to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill at its first reading. Before I begin, I must say that Trevor Mallard, the member who resumed his seat a little while ago, would have to be the most compelling argument for retirement that I have heard for a long time. The piece of nonsense that he made us endure, really, where he is kind of the—we call him the pin-up boy of anger management for the Labour Party, because, basically, he loses his temper a lot and goes toe to toe with Tau, and really comes off worse than anyone could ever imagine. Most of us have more conviction than he has convictions, which are not inconsiderable.

He had a crack at gardeners, and I would have to say that that is pretty unwise. Mostly, every time he opens his mouth he loses even more votes for Labour, if that is possible. To take a crack at gardeners is one of his more stupid approaches. But if we are going on to those horticultural metaphors, he is the ultimate dead wood. He is the kind of dead wood that if Labour had any sense, it would cut him out. Perhaps Matt McCarten is going to move out and sharpen his saw and have a good crack at him, because that is the only way to rejuvenate. You see, when you have got a plant that is dying, you do need to chop it off. All those dead twiggy growths that are long past their use-by date, horticulturally speaking, should be chopped off. The manure he has got plenty of. [Interruption] Yes, I know, the debate is about retirement. So it is a horticultural metaphor about getting a member who is clearly past his best to get off and do something else if he can possibly find it—those convictions being, no doubt, something of a problem.

But getting the best return from investment is what this particular bill is about. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund needs to invest more efficiently. The changes promoted in the bill, which others have outlined, are actually there to achieve that, and I think that is a very good thing. When you look at efficiency, governance, and, particularly, Government-controlled fund managers, the ongoing work in progressing the efficiency is something that this bill seeks to do.

As far as independence is concerned, really we need to look at the risks that the Government would face if it overruled what was happening with that independence. We certainly are not of a mind to do that, but we do feel that there need to be some changes to amend the powers that can be delegated by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. There are three main powers that need to be amended: the power to grant power of attorney, the power to appoint an investment manager, and the power to appoint a custodian. The bill proposes to remove these, and that will really strengthen the investment fund and strengthen its ability. There will be other opportunities to speak on this bill and I will take them with alacrity. In the meantime, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I was not listening to the previous speaker, Maggie Barry, because I wanted to keep focused on the subject at hand and make a valuable contribution to this debate, rather than the usual toxic round-up that we receive from the other side of the House. In that respect, we are here to talk about the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, which allows Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation “as manager and administrator of the Fund, to control entities formed for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the Fund”.

The National Government was wrong to stop Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in 2009. In 2009 the National Government suspended Government payments into the fund. The New Zealand Treasury projects that contributions will not resume until 2016-17. As at 30 June 2013 capital contributions not made by the Government totalled $8.6 billion. So in the period that this Government has been in office, since 2008—then it made the decision in 2009—it has reduced the contributions to every man’s, woman’s, and child’s future superannuation by $8.6 billion in that short space of time. That is appalling because during the same period of time, the 12 months ended 30 June 2013, the fund posted a 25.8 percent return—a 25.8 percent return.

The Minister of Finance, Bill English, has the cheek to sit over there and say he determined that it was not good to be borrowing money—$100 million a week—and be putting money into every New Zealander’s future superannuation. The Government can borrow at about 4 percent—even less than 4 percent. But the Minister of Finance, in his wisdom—even with foresight, hindsight, rear sight, and any other sight—determined that it was not good mathematics to invest in a fund that last year returned a 25.8 percent return.

💬 John Hayes: No, it didn’t—9 percent.

Go on to its website, Mr Hayes, and you will see on the website that it says 25.8 percent. The rate of return on the Superannuation Fund since its inception back in 2002 has been an average of 9.35 percent per annum against a risk-free rate of return, had it simply put the money in the bank, of 4.79 percent. So it is double. It is double what a risk-free return would have been for the whole period.

On 12 March 2014, just last week, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund invested an additional US$50 million in Bloom Energy in the United States, which is a maker of onsite power generation. This followed an initial US$50 million investment in May 2013. So in the last year, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has invested US$100 million in a US energy company. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund has stated that “the investment would help the Fund take advantage of increasing demand for energy globally” to go alongside its traditional energy investments. Is it not interesting that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which now has $25 billion in assets, including $3.7 billion invested in New Zealand, is investing large sums of money in overseas energy assets? Is that not interesting?

💬 John Hayes: No.

Well, it is very interesting—Mr Hayes says it is not interesting—because New Zealand First has said we will buy back the power companies and the utilities that were 100 percent owned by all New Zealanders up until last year. They were owned by all New Zealanders. We have said we will buy them back. A jolly good investment for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund would be to invest back into our utilities and our power companies—take them back, but not under Government control so that politicians like Mr Hayes, Mr English, and others can then flick them on so their mates, 2½ percent of New Zealanders, can benefit from owning the shares. If we put them into ownership under the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and under KiwiSaver funds so that all New Zealanders can own those assets once again, then every drop of water that goes down the Waikato River through Mr Bennett’s electorate of Hamilton East and every drop of water that goes down through Ātiamuri, Karapiro, and all those other dams can be returning money. They are all like ATM machines, all those dams on the Waikato River—they are like ATM machines. Those dams in the future, through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, could be returning funds for the future of New Zealanders’ superannuation.

Further to that, this is all about ensuring that when we all retire at 65, and we will retire at 65—

💬 David Bennett: Retire, then.

—well, some like you, Mr Bennett, might be a bit earlier than that—we can provide for our seniors when they do finally give up working and employment. New Zealand First, in conjunction with this bill—and we support this bill and we think that it is a sensible thing to allow the Superannuation Fund to be able to control its destiny and investments. New Zealand First has a brilliant scheme in terms of superannuation as part of this whole package. That would be that you are entitled to receive it at 65, and keep it at 65, on the basis of how long you have paid into the scheme. If you have been in this country from age 20 through to 65, you would be entitled to have 5 years’ repayment holiday if you are away on your OE, travelling, or living overseas for a period of time. But for the other 40 years up to age 65, if you have worked here or if you have brought up a family here or if you have been a resident here, you would receive 100 percent of the superannuation pay-out under New Zealand First’s policy. For every year that you are out of the country over and above that, you would receive one-fortieth less. So if you have been in this country for only 20 years out of the 40 years of that eligible period, you would get twenty-fortieths. You would get one-half. But in so doing, we would allow portability of superannuation from the countries of origin. So if you are coming out of these countries of origin, you can bring your superannuation with you and then get the balance according to how much time you have spent in this country.

It is very clear that this country is becoming a soft touch. It is becoming a soft touch for people who see us as a place to come and live because they can then get superannuation very easily. They can then go on to our public health system. They can then go on to our ACC system. New Zealand is being seen as a soft touch around the world to come and live in because we will give out all the handouts.

Well, if we are going to be serious about this and if we are going to ensure—and we have 600,000 superannuitants this year, and within the next 15 to 20 years there will be 1.1 million superannuitants, and that is a huge blossoming of the postwar baby boomers over the next 15 to 20 years—that the 4.5 million people in New Zealand will be able to afford to keep the superannuation scheme and the payments going, we have to have it in tandem with a restructured scheme such as the one New Zealand First is suggesting. We have to ensure that Governments of the day, such as National, continue to invest in the scheme and that they do not pull it out, that they do not stop investing, and that the politicians do not meddle with it but continue to allow the superannuation scheme to grow. It is estimated that it will be worth over $100 billion within the next 20 or 30 years. New Zealand First supports this bill but we condemn the Government for what it has done to the superannuation scheme in the last 4 years.

I am going to call the honourable member Ian McKelvie.

💬 Dr David Clark: Oh! He wasn’t there. He wasn’t there.

I was sheltered by a very solid man. I just want to comment very briefly on the last speaker, Andrew Williams, who clearly does not get investment. This Government has chosen its investment path and it has chosen to invest in the future of New Zealanders, not in a savings scheme that could return money or could not. Clearly, the investment in the future of New Zealanders has provided a great return. One has only to look at the export receipts for this year to see that.

I listened to the Minister of Finance give a clear and plausible description of why this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, is necessary. I have since listened to the Greens’ co-leader Russel Norman describing his isolationist policy for New Zealand. We have never seen Government interference in any market succeed. Distortion inevitably occurs. I did hear the co-leader of the Greens proposing tonight what sounded like a supplementary minimum price recipe for forestry. I well remember the damage done to our sheep industry by supplementary minimum prices in the late 1970s and 1980s.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund has around $25 billion in it at the moment, $3.7 billion of which is invested in New Zealand. The capital market growth promoted by this Government will enable a significantly larger proportion of that fund to be invested in New Zealand in the future. That is what this Government is about. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Thank you—

💬 David Bennett: Didn’t have to wait long.

I did not have to wait too long, as it turned out. The National member Ian McKelvie clearly felt that there was not much to contribute on this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill.

We in the Labour Party will be supporting this bill because it seems that the powers in it are sensible—at least worth discussing at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Of course, the Cullen fund was started under a Labour Government, and since its inception in 2003 the fund has returned 9.55 percent a year, well exceeding static investments in banks and the like. This Government, on the other hand, has a shocking record on savings. It suspended the payments to that fund. It has borrowed more money than any Government. It has out-borrowed Muldoon, and that is a pretty shocking statistic. This is a Government that has borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. As we all know, it has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years, and that is quite an achievement.

Of course, on average, we know that since World War II Labour Governments have grown the economy faster and more than National Governments. That, in itself, is not known by every citizen—that National Governments since World War II have, on average, grown the economy by 2.9 percent. You know, that is not bad for second place. But it is only a two-horse race, so let us not forget that. Labour Governments since World War II have, on average, grown the economy by 3.7 percent, thereby growing the economy faster. Labour Governments have proven themselves able to make the big strategic decisions. That is why what we are tinkering with here is a Labour initiative. If you want tinkering, National is the party for you. It is interested in tactical moves. Labour, of course, is interested in the big decisions and the strategic decisions that need to be taken when the economy has challenges that need to be faced.

Let us look at employer contributions in the KiwiSaver scheme. It was 4 percent when this Government took it over. The Government took it down to 2 percent, and then round it went, back up again to 3 percent. This is a Government that has no idea where it is going. One minute it is down, the next minute it is up. It is suspending this payment, it is borrowing money, and now we have a little bit of freeing up for the Superannuation Fund. Well, this is sensible and Labour will support sensible steps on the odd occasion that this Government is prepared to take them.

We are more focused on the big issues and on making sure that New Zealanders face lower power prices. We are thinking of things like our NZ Power policy, which will reduce power costs for businesses by about 5 percent per annum. That is significant. Kiwi households will have their power prices lowered by about several hundred dollars per year—by about $300 to $500 per year for New Zealand households. That is significant. This Government is prepared to let things beetle along, ticking out of control, slowly getting worse, and to manage decline. It regards that as OK because it is now arrogant and out of touch.

💬 David Bennett: This is the worst speech for 50 years.

The Government members are jollying themselves over there. They are kind of cheerful. They are enjoying being on that side of the House, but they have got no real ideas. They do not have an idea about how they are going to take this economy forward and how they are going to ensure economic growth in this country. The Government is busy trying to work out who its coalition partners might be—whether it is crazy Colin Craig, and Ms Barry, I note, is nervous about her seat, and well she might be. The fund-raising for the National Party is down in the North Shore, and the party instrument is unhappy about that. The party is worried about Jamie what’s-his-name, the new guy from the ACT Party, who wants everyone to consider marrying their family members. These are the partners it has got. It is worried about the problem of trying to get back into Government at any cost. It does not have the ideas to back it up.

I have talked about NZ Power. I will talk also about KiwiBuild. Labour is going to partner with industry to build 10,000 houses per annum because we recognise that there is a problem that needs fixing. This Government is content to leave it to the market. I am sure that Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga will leap to his feet shortly to say that the market will solve all of these things. It is like Simon Bridges, who says that NZ Power is not going to work, that the Labour Party plan is too big and too bold, and that the market just needs to settle down. It just needs a bit more time to bed in, he said, after 15 years in place and power prices still going up, out of control. There was $4.3 billion worth of price gouging in the early 2000s. Simon Bridges said that it just needs a little more time to bed in. That shows you how out of touch members have become on that side of the House. They are looking after their own interests and the interests of a privileged few, and that is coming at the expense of all New Zealanders.

National is watching the gap between rich and poor grow and grow and grow. We know that it is at the highest levels—at the highest levels—it has ever been since proper statistics were recorded. We know that hungry kids do not learn properly. So if we have a policy like the Best Start policy that Labour has, which is going to make sure that there is a little bit more money in those family households so that kids do have enough to eat in the morning, we are going to actually have better outcomes in the longer term. That is the strategic thinking, the long-term thinking, the kind of change a Labour Government will bring, not the tactical, short-term penny-pinching that you get from a National Government that gives tax cuts only to the wealthy. We know that of those 2010 tax cuts, 40 percent of the value went to the top 10 percent of earners. Just 2 percent went to the bottom 20 percent of earners. So that gap between rich and poor grows and grows and grows, and it is those people in the middle who are feeling squeezed the most. They are feeling squeezed because they are watching the cost of living go up, power prices out of control, and a Government that is happy to leave it to the market. The Government thinks that power prices are about right, says Mr Key—it thinks they are about right. It is not prepared to tackle the housing issue—the market will sort it out. Garages are being built—what is wrong with that? Where is the problem? That is the National Government’s answer.

Today we have seen another great announcement from the Labour Party, which is looking to make real change that will matter, and that is to the forestry sector. It is a really comprehensive plan that will give proper tax incentives to build new processing so that we have value-added products, not just volume, going off in shipping containers. This is a plan that is bold, that will make real difference for New Zealanders and real difference for an industry. We have leading-edge innovation. We have a Labour Party committed to research and development. New Zealand has amongst the lowest levels of investment in research and development of the world, and that is a disgrace—overseen, again, by this Government. We want public science backing the development of wood-plastic composites. We want building standards. We want procurement strategies. All of these things are outlined in the Wood First policy announced by David Cunliffe today. These are the big changes, not the kind of tinkering that you will find in this bill.

We have big plans, and that is the same with our savings policies. This superannuation policy, allowing the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to delegate a bit of responsibility here and there, is positive, but it is not the kind of change like universal KiwiSaver that Labour would introduce. We know that where they have had it in Australia, they have now got $1.7 trillion—$1.7 trillion—in retirement savings, and when a business is looking to invest, it has got support coming out of its ears if it has got a good idea. In New Zealand, if you are wanting to start a business and you have got a good idea, I am afraid that it is a case of handing around the baseball cap for $20 notes from the family. That is the difference. That is the vision of this Government here. It is quite happy with that status quo—without savings, without the kind of economic structures, and without the long-term thinking that will see New Zealand grow the pie.

That is why the history tells us that National grows the economy slower than Labour. That is what the history tells us. That is what the history since World War II tells us—black and white statistics, clear as day. National is after the tactical, short-term penny-pinching. We will grow the economy in the interests of all New Zealanders. We will share the gains. We will not grow inequalities like National does. We will produce value-adding in the forestry sector. We will lower power prices so that all businesses can get ahead and so that families have lower power bills. We will build houses. We will make sure that they are warm. We will partner with industry to build houses, and we will make sure there are warm, safe houses for all New Zealanders. We will share the spoils across all people in this country, not just the wealthy few.

Labour has a plan. We have long-term vision and strategic thinking, not the short-term tactical stuff that this arrogant, out-of-touch Government has produced. We will ensure that any economic recovery benefits everybody, not just the privileged few. And that is the difference between the two main parties sitting here in this particular Parliament. The Government is prepared to watch the cost of living continue to go up. It is not prepared to make the big calls. It is prepared to do a bit of corporate welfare to Rio Tinto, a bit of a casino deal over here—this kind of thing—and to intervene in the market for broadband. It will intervene here or there, where it thinks its interests are at stake. It will do something for a golf game to get a big donation to charity, and there is more on that to come, I am quite sure. Labour has the big ideas, the long-term view in the interests of New Zealanders. National is making short-term decisions and it is hurting New Zealand.

I am interested in the strategic plan that Labour has—the big ideas, the grand vision—but can I say to the reverend from Dunedin that there is a hole in your argument, a hole in your bucket. You will never ever get to implement those big ideas, that big strategy, until you start hating members on this side of the House more than you hate each other, because that is going to make you fail.

Can I come to the speaker from New Zealand First, Andrew Williams, who, along with Labour, supports this New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. You criticised us for not sharing, for making a bigger gap between the rich and the poor, but let me say to you that we do care about superannuitants. On 1 April this year every superannuitant in this country will get an additional payment of $14.68 a fortnight. Why? Because we are paying them the minimum wage—[Interruption] We are paying 66 percent of the minimum wage. This is a wonderful piece of legislation, which I absolutely support. Thank you.

I would, first, like to say to those New Zealanders who are listening that they should drink to that speech by John Hayes. I am not entirely sure whether it is white, red, or rosé, but whatever it is, it has led to flushed cheeks.

I want to stand and actually direct our attention to the name of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. The word “superannuation” is actually closely related to the doing word, the verb “to superannuate”. To superannuate is to discard something that is obsolete or past its use-by date. Let me, first, direct my attention to the other side of the House. We were worried that there was not a Minister in the House. We did see someone up in the far corner sort of underneath a rose bush, but then we looked across and we saw the Associate Minister of Local Government. Before I complete my story about superannuating, make sure, Associate Minister of Local Government, that you have a good briefing, because I am hoping to superannuate some people in the Whangarei District Council for its gross lapse of stewardship over infrastructure and civil works in Ruakākā.

I mention Ruakākā because in Māori it means two parrots. I want to direct my attention before I come back to the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust imbroglio—because there will be much superannuating taking place there. There will be superannuating at the top of the kōhanga reo governance structure, and that pains me because a host of those matuas are my relatives. But this is a more serious issue than whakapapa. The Minister of Education has sought unsuccessfully—as she is soon to be superannuated by the boss when he gets home—to defend her relative the matriarch of Ngati Porou, Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, who most certainly will be superannuated, if not by the Serious Fraud Office then by us in the political system who will not spend another dollar on a governance structure in the kōhanga reo head office enterprise until it is tidied up.

Let me come back, however, to the Minister of Māori Affairs. The Minister of Māori Affairs—if there is anyone who should study this bill with inordinate interest and enjoy a “come to Jesus” moment with the term “retirement” and the verb of the word superannuation, “to superannuate”, it is him. It is not for me to talk about the mystery surrounding the Malaysian airline in the context of superannuation. Along with my parliamentary colleagues, I am quite glued to learning what has happened to this enormously expensive and highly sought after aircraft. I am going to leave that to one side and enjoy watching CNN, but I say that the Minister is the political equivalent of a lost aircraft. We do not know his political whereabouts. There are occasional blips when he comes to earn his pay in the Whare Pāremata. The fact that Hone Harawira is now here more often is actually not only a tragedy for the role of the Minister of Māori Affairs but an achievement for democracy, because for the last 9 years we have never seen so much of Hone Harawira.

I have heard my colleague from the Green Party—parliamentary colleague, I should say—refer to the bill. I have heard him talk about this particular bill providing an opportunity for a bunch of subsidiary investments into key areas. Although that is important, we should never overlook the fact that, as that member said today in the forestry meeting, if foreign direct investment continues to flow into key sectors—and, indeed, it may continue to flow into the dairy sector, but it is certainly in the forestry sector—why should it continue if those investors have no commitment to the New Zealand supply chain? I ask why it should continue if those investors have no commitment to enabling the tertiary and secondary industries associated with that commodity business—i.e., the growing of trees and the sale of logs. On that point, I must say that the co-leader of the Green Party spoke a great deal of sense today in relation to the bill.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Unlike you in the last 5 minutes.

Well, actually, now that the member for Waikato has perked up, let me say that the Associate Minister for Primary Industries was grossly outwitted today by the representatives of the Contractors Federation. That gives you an indication of how irrelevant her speech was. She made the fatal error of defending the investment into the dairy sector via the irrigation subsidy. I personally have no political difficulty with that being chosen as a way of deepening our superannuation reservoir of investment opportunities, but call it what it is. It is the provision of public money to underwrite the cost of irrigation, which will create a tremendous opportunity for the expansion of agribusiness.

My only problem with that is that no one is offering that to my old industry, the fishing industry. No one is offering that to the forestry industry. Indeed, the forestry industry has been turned down five times over recent months in making applications under the grant scheme that has been plundered by the dairy industry or a small group of people in control of other rural commodity businesses. Politically, I can understand that. That is the name of the game. When you are in power, you reward the people who gave you power. That is fine.

All I am saying is do not roll out an argument that it is incorrect for our side of the House to want to grow the Māori presence in forestry, create jobs, train young men and women for that particular business, and move it up into a more dynamic state. Do not say that we are picking winners, yet it is good enough to write a cheque out for Warner Bros. Why is it good enough to provide superannuation opportunities for Hollywood investors, but it is not good enough for the Māoris and the God-fearing Kiwis in Ruatōria, Kaikohe, Kaitāia, and a variety of other places neglected by the current regime? That is why.

Now let me come back to the bill. Although this bill provides some structural changes, until such time as capital flows into those areas that have become neglected—and I am not talking about dairy farmers. They have got their opportunity to enjoy their chance while the sun shines upon them. It is just that their fortunes are going to change when we govern, because we are not going to allow water to be treated as some resource whose greatest contribution to society is its absorptive capacity to deal with waste. We are not going to be allowing it to be a free resource, the value of which is then capitalised into land resources that, when eventually sold, have no capital gains tax. We might be voted out and never voted in for such ideas, but there will be no ambiguity about those particular ideas. I say that as someone who grew up on a farm. I say that as someone who is very proud and a great promoter of our rural sector and our agricultural industries. Unfortunately, their level of guardianship and their level of leadership in convincing the rest of us Kiwis that they do not deserve to be regulated and that their qualities of stewardship do not deserve any political oversight has come and gone.

Now they are safe. They are safe while that side of the House is there. They are safe while the Prime Minister will do their bidding—not the bidding of the meat industry, not the bidding of the wool industry, but the bidding of the milking industry. If there is any group that has developed a hugely sophisticated way to milk resources out of the public sector, it is the $400 million - odd that is delivered by way of grants for research purposes. It is the collapse of the emissions trading scheme, where the dairy industry has enjoyed a “get out of jail free” card. It is not the meat industry, not the wool industry, and not the fishing industry. As of today it is not the forestry industry. But rest assured that help is on its way. There is no help in terms of what the Associate Minister for Primary Industries had to say today.

This has been a free-ranging debate. We have invited our colleagues on the other side of the House to contemplate being superannuated. I have guaranteed that the Māori Party will go, as a consequence of its shameless behaviour and its undermining of the process of appointing the new chief executive officer of Māori Television, designed wholly to stop Māori Television from exposing the failure of the current Government in its Māori affairs policy and wider matters pertaining to Māoridom. When it goes, it can take Georgina te Heuheu with it. Kia ora tātou katoa.

I think the productive sector of New Zealand should listen to the speech on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill made by the previous speaker, and the next leader of the Labour Party, Shane Jones. In that speech Mr Jones said he is going to make an all-out attack on the one sector that is providing the income for New Zealand. Leave this room, Mr Jones, you should. Listen to what would be coming under a Labour Government: not only a capital gains tax on dairy farmers but an attack on environmental standards by the Labour Party, which does not believe that regional councils do their own work these days.

Take Mr Jones’ argument and put it the other way round. He is saying we should not be giving any particular industries a special handout without giving it to everybody. Well, why attack the dairy industry, which is the big income earner of New Zealand? Why give it the special attack that is coming from the Labour Party if it ever gets into Government? Labour will attack the great industry that provides the income for this country specifically to pay for its own plans.

Look at your own argument, Mr Jones. Turn it in reverse. Why are you attacking the industry that provides the bread and butter of this country going forward? Mr Jones, think about your argument as you go forward. To all the voters out there, remember that the dairy industry has got the New Zealand economy in the position it is in at the moment. Mr Jones wants to stop that.

I wish to table the New Zealand Superannuation Fund returns for 30 June 2013, which show that the fund made a gross return—

That will do. Is there any—

💬 Andrew Williams: —a record return—of 25.8 percent.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Well, that may be true, but the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.