KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill

Already we have on the Table an amendment from Fletcher Tabuteau, one from Dr David Clark, and one from Chris Hipkins.

What a fair Chairman. It actually does speak well of the Chairman because I just had a wee confrontation with him and he is still big enough to call me, so thank you, Mr Chairman.

I want to talk to the commencement date. The commencement date is expressed to be when the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill gets Royal assent, but then there are two exceptions to that, which are that particular parts of the bill, once it receives Royal assent, are of retrospective effect. I want to talk about why we need to take particular care in respect of commencement dates in respect of legislation that goes to raiding retirement schemes, because the Government has got prior form on this. The National Party, which forms the majority of this Government, is the same party that raided the earlier retirement scheme under Muldoon. It killed off the Kirk scheme, which would have had New Zealand in a similar position to Australia in terms of investment capital. In fact, it was even earlier than the Australian scheme that followed it. It has killed off contributions to the Cullen fund. We have already seen that that has cost—

💬 Dr David Clark: $16 billion.

—the Cullen fund $16 billion at current rates of return because of that folly. And now we have cuts to KiwiSaver, particularly the $1,000.

As to the date, you have got ask yourself this. The Government is doing this as of today, in the name, it says, of child poverty. When do its child poverty measures kick in? On 1 April next year. The Government is saying that it is a compassionate Government because it recognises that there are many children, many thousands of children, living in severe poverty in New Zealand. It accepts that these children sometimes go without breakfast, sometimes go without lunch at school, sometimes go without shoes, and can never pay their school fees, or just about never. It accepts that we have serious hardship in New Zealand amongst children and that they need $25 a week—we think that is pretty miserly; our policy was $60 a week per child under 3—but it says $25 a week because their circumstances are so desperate that they need more money for breakfast.

So those parents are going to go to their kids on Monday and they are going to say: “Next year you can have breakfast.” Look at their eyes down over there on the Government benches. One of the fundamental flaws relating to commencement dates in this total Budget package is that, actually, the Government acknowledges that there is a real and serious problem with child poverty now in New Zealand, but it is not going to fix it until 1 April next year—and this in a wealthy country.

But what will the Government do this year? This year it will kill the KiwiSaver kick-start payment, effective as of Budget day. It is backwards. Not April next year. It will take that off people next year. You know, that kick-start payment is deliberately progressive. The Labour Party designed it. We do things that are progressive. One thousand dollars to a low-income person is worth a lot more than $1,000 to a high-income person, partly because of their marginal tax rates and partly just because their income rate is lower. The progressive payment of $1,000 per person is progressive. The Government takes that away today, but the people whom it says are in poverty now do not get breakfast until next year. That sums up this Government.

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s how much they care.

That is how much it cares. It cares not enough. We accept that $25 a week next year is better than not getting $25 a week next year. We said we would get $60 a week into the pockets of those kids in poor families per child for the first 3 years of their life from this year. But we did not win the election; National did. With the KiwiSaver kick-start payment, we were actually going to spread it over 5 years as we got everyone into the scheme, but we were not going to cut it.

The commencement date of this legislation is worthy of note because it highlights the fact that the Government pretends that it is worried about these children living in poverty who cannot get breakfast this year, but it is saying: “You won’t get it till next year.” I also want to return to the question of why it is that the bill has got a commencement date for reducing one of the incentives to KiwiSaver now when we have got a current account deficit that is blowing out, we have got exports dropping—

I know that on the Government benches they were eager to hear my contribution, so I shall not disappoint. I have put forward an amendment to the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill to ensure that this kick-start contribution is not withdrawn until 2018. That would allow a future Labour Government to make sure that the kick-start contribution continues as it is now.

This is a Government that is determined to take from New Zealand’s future in order to pay for its mismanagement today. This is a Government with no plan. Those members opposite have got their heads down. They know that it is true. The Government is trying here to take $1,000 off future generations—off half a million Kiwis in the next 4 years. That is what it is doing here, with this bill. Make no mistake if you are watching this at home. It is taking $1,000 off half a million Kiwis for their retirement savings because it has not managed the economy well, because it has failed to get to surplus, and because it is trying to make it look like it has not missed by too much. Actually, the books are a billion dollars worse than they were at the last Budget. The Government is doing an appalling job of managing the economy. It has failed in good times to diversify the economy.

My amendment would push out the date on which this legislation starts, so that a Labour Government in the future could fix this before it actually takes effect. That is the effect of my amendment. If we look at how it stands now—and it is here in the explanatory note in the general policy statement at the front of the bill. People at home may not have this in front them, but—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Well, they might—they might. There are some who will. But if they do not, I will explain that what this bill attempts to do is enact retrospective legislation. When the Budget was announced at 2 p.m. on Thursday, that was the cut-off point. If people had not signed up at that point, they were not eligible to get the kick-start contribution any more. Why did the Government make that change retrospective? Why is it passing legislation now—after that time—that takes effect a few days ago? It is because it knows, in its heart of hearts, that this incentive works. It knows that if people really wanted to sign up to this programme just because it was so, they would have done it anyway. That the incentive really matters is something that Government members try to deny, but they know that if they made this change start a little later, people would be rushing out there to sign up.

There is also an amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins, which I expect he will speak to on that front, which allows for people who may be watching at home and saying “Gosh, I wish I’d got that $1,000.” to go out and sign up in the next few months. It is a sensible amendment. If the Government members really believed that that was not going to be the effect of this legislation, if they really believed that $1,000 would make no difference, they would accept Chris Hipkin’s amendment and they would accept my amendment, which allows for that $1,000 to continue.

My amendment is really targeted at the artificial surplus that the Government is creating, because this is a Budget without vision. This Budget is one that fails to meet the Government’s promise of a surplus—the central promise of its last election campaign. This amendment says: “We will continue with this very good scheme until a future Labour Government can correct it.” That is why I am putting forward an amendment in clause 2 of the bill. As it currently stands, it came into force, as I said, the moment the Budget was announced. We know that this will have an effect. We also know that the changes that the Government is proposing are going to cost taxpayers, so we would obviate that cost with my amendment.

The extra $210,000 that the Government estimates currently that it would cost to change the Inland Revenue Department tax system in order to take this money away from future kids—$210,000 to take the money away from future kids—would be avoided. Let us think about that. That is 210 kids’ starts in life—210—that are paid for just by avoiding this change. The Government spends the money frivolously on Government administration because it is scampering for the surplus. The bill was a panicked response. We know that, and we have heard that in the previous debate, because it is right there in the Government’s own departmental statements. It is important for the reason that it avoids costs to the Inland Revenue Department, and by flow-on effect it avoids costs to the taxpayer. That $210,000 can be avoided. I would think that members opposite would consider it to be important to take into account how New Zealand taxpayers’ money is spent.

I would like to speak to the commencement date, as outlined in clause 2, of the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill as well. I note that in my last call I asked Mr Woodhouse, the Minister in the chair, whether he would respond to a number of questions, which he did not. One of them or, in fact, a couple of them relate directly to this clause, which is the commencement date. What we know is that the Government has said that it wants to introduce this immediately, and has taken the attitude that if you are not already currently enrolled in the scheme, then the chances that you are ever going to get enrolled in the scheme are low to none, and so what would be the harm in immediate commencement? We also know that there are people out there who have been thinking about it. We know from behavioural economics that there is a substantial tail of people for whom it is a complicated process and they would like to get round to it but they have not yet got round to it. The question is: why not just extend this out and have it commence at a later date in order to incentivise those who are currently not in the scheme, but were kind of thinking about it, to actually get into the scheme? Yes, it would cost a little bit more money, but if the intention here is to scoop up as many people as possible using the incentive, then we ought to do that.

I know that there are a number of amendments. There is David Clark’s amendment pushing the commencement date out to after the next election. There is also Fletcher Tabuteau’s amendment pushing it out by a couple of years. I take the Labour Party’s point—which I think is a valid one—that if you commence this bill immediately but not the rest of the hardship package until the beginning of the next financial year, then there is a substantial gap there between the commencement of this cut and then the implementation of the benefit increases. Why not just line them up? Why not say: “Let’s commence this at the start of the next financial year.”? That gives people an incentive. If they are currently not in the scheme, it says you have got 8 or 9 months to get yourself into the scheme. It makes perfect sense to do that, and then after that the incentive will be gone. People will have had fair warning and, at the same time, you will have joined it up with the rest of your benefits package that you have been talking about.

To me it makes perfect sense to do that. I have not yet heard anybody from the Government say anything about why it was chosen to have this immediate and retrospective commencement date and whether there was any consideration at all of any kind of zone where people who are currently not in the scheme could get into the scheme. I really would like a response to that. I notice that Simon Bridges has now taken the Government’s position in the chair, and I have noted in previous debates that Mr Bridges has responded directly to these kinds of points, so I would like to invite him to do so. I understand that the vote is going to go the way it is going to go, but it would be nice to hear the Government’s reasoning in response to that point, because I think it is a fair and valid one. Thank you.

Thank you—[Interruption] Thanks for the response on the other side of the Chamber. Thanks, gentlemen. The whole premise of this legislation and the whole logic that we are given behind it in order to debate today is, we are told, that the $1,000 kick-start contribution is no longer sufficient or, actually, it is unwarranted because it does not do enough to engage people into KiwiSaver, people are not coming into KiwiSaver any more, this $1,000 contribution is not doing what we want it to, and it is costing us too much money. That is the logic that this Government provides this Committee today, and it is why we are debating this.

On top of that, the policy advice that we and the Government were given was, actually, to ignore the implications to saving in terms of the national interest for New Zealand. So do not look at that; just analyse why we should get rid of this KiwiSaver contribution, because we need an excuse.

My challenge—and I will not take all of my time, because it is a simple challenge—to this Government is to consider the fact that based on the premise of your logic today, you do not need retrospective legislation. You did not need to bring this in days ago. There is no reason for it under the premise of the logic that you have provided this Committee with today. Give New Zealanders time. You have put it out there publicly now. Give them time so that they can engage in their savings.

We have heard such impassioned contributions and meaningful contributions from this side of the Chamber about who is missing out, and so that I focus on this clause solely, I will just repeat that it was said. I will not go into the detail again. But let us use another piece of logic. Let us line up the changes in legislation, which is what the two Supplementary Order Papers have suggested. Let us line them up. We are bringing these welfare changes in in a couple of years. Let us give New Zealanders the same opportunity to react. Let us give them time to understand that now is the time to get into their KiwiSaver programme. I know that it was cynically asked how we get New Zealanders into KiwiSaver. Well, my cynical response will be that this Government will make it compulsory. Do not do that. Give them a real reason. Give them that incentive that our youth need. Let us even up the playing field. There is no need under the logic provided by the Government to this Committee. The very reason for this debate is that it is no longer an incentive. Well, let us bring it in just before the election and let the Government members stand in front of the public and say to them “We are taking away your KiwiSaver.” when it is fresh in the public’s mind. Thank you.

I am very pleased to speak to the amendment to clause 2 of the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill that I have put forward, which would move the commencement date of the main part of this legislation from 21 May 2015—Budget day—through to 21 June 2015. It would give people who have not had the opportunity to take up the kick-start just over a month to do so.

In speaking to this amendment, I want to particularly address my comments to the five new National members on the other side of the House. Those five National members all campaigned under the same slogan, which was that they promised to be “the strong voice for [insert electorate name here] in John Key’s National Government”. They had advertisements up and down the country and on their cars, campaigning.

💬 Chris Bishop: And a fresh face.

Chris Bishop has still got one in the basement with the slogan on it. It sits in the basement now because he has given up. The slogan was to be “a strong voice in John Key’s National Government”. Well, let us hear it. Let us hear that strong voice. Let us hear them stand up and say why they think that the Kiwis who have not yet signed up to KiwiSaver should not get the $1,000 kick-start. Let us hear them stand up and explain why this legislation needs to be retrospectively backdated to stop Kiwis who have not signed up from being able to get the $1,000 kick-start.

The amendment that I have put forward would give them a month to do so, and if the Government thinks that this is an unfair advantage, then say so. Let us hear it. Let us hear those members say it, because let us actually think about the practical implications of this. If somebody on Thursday—it is still Thursday in the House today, according to the rules of the House. So if somebody today, under the rules of the House—which was actually Thursday in the real world—went out in their lunch break and signed up for KiwiSaver at 1.30 p.m., then they would get $1,000 for doing so. But if somebody signed up right now, before this bill has even finished its passage through the House, they would not get that $1,000. We are talking about a matter of an hour. How is that fair? I am happy to hear from anyone from the Government about how they think that is fair. It is not—it is not. If the Government really believed in this change and it really thought that this was necessary, it would at least give the New Zealanders who have not had the chance to sign up the opportunity to do so.

Here is another example and another reason why Kiwis should be given extra time to take up the measure, and why my amendment is well and truly justified. If a child is born into a family earning a middle or higher income, or has been born in that family in, say, the last 6 months to a year, and their parents took up the opportunity to sign them up to KiwiSaver, then they are going to get the $1,000. On the other hand, somebody who has been working their way up in a minimum wage job to get themselves to the point—and they may have just got to that point around about now—where they can finally afford to sign up to KiwiSaver is not going to get it.

This reinforces inequality in the system. It says to somebody that if they have had the good fortune in the last few years to have been born into a family who could afford to sign them up to KiwiSaver right when they were born, they are going to get an advantage. Compare that with someone who is working really hard and is potentially at the point now where they can finally sign up to KiwiSaver; they could have been working towards it. They are not going to get the $1,000 kick-start that somebody who has had the good fortune to be born into a family who could afford it is going to get. That is unfair. So why not give those people who are on low incomes, who have been delaying signing up into KiwiSaver until they were in a financial position to do so—why not give them a month?

💬 David Bennett: What about the next generation of low-income earners? What a stupid speech.

Why not just give them a year to actually see whether they can make it across that hurdle? Why not be fair? David Bennett says it is not fair. David Bennett is about the only member on that side of the House whom I am willing to hear criticism from on KiwiSaver, because he is one of the only people on the other side of the House who has not actually signed up to KiwiSaver. As my colleague Kris Faafoi pointed out, he is either very principled or very stupid—probably the latter. But—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. From an inane member like that, I am not accepting that comment—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will sit down. First of all, the member is going to withdraw and apologise for being disorderly during his point of order. When he has done that he will have one chance to raise a proper point of order.

💬 David Bennett: No, it’s OK.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, you are going to withdraw and apologise anyway.

💬 David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise, but I ask that member to withdraw and apologise as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You have now got your last chance, if you want to stay in the House, to withdraw and apologise, with nothing else.

💬 David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am happy to wrap up this contribution on my amendment, although I might have a little bit more time to go, but we will see how we go.

I want to speak to another reason why this amendment that I have put forward should be adopted by the House. I want to say, as matter of principle, that I would rather David Clark’s amendment be passed. It pushes this commencement date out beyond the next election so that New Zealanders can actually have a say on it, because this was not a change foreshadowed by National at the last election, and New Zealanders should have the opportunity to vote on it. But if the Government is not of a mind to support that, I hope that it will support my amendment. If the Government members were genuine in the contributions that they made—

I rise to support Chris Hipkins’ amendment because, as he said, the current commencement date is not fair. But what I would like to say is that I think it is probably even fairer to push that date, as David Clark’s amendment proposes, right through to beyond the election, so that it is actually an election issue.

Let us face it, in Budgets gone by, with the old Budgets in the past, people used to go out in the evening of the day before and fill up their cars with petrol because they thought that the price of petrol was going to go up. This Government has the practice of cutting a clause out of KiwiSaver in every single Budget, so that it undermines the very premise on which this scheme is running.

Two and a half million people have signed up for KiwiSaver—2.5 million people. It is an outstanding success, and why are those people signing up? Well, according to the Inland Revenue Department—and the department has done an extensive number of surveys on this—65 percent of the people who sign up for KiwiSaver do so to collect the $1,000 kick-start. So now you have just moved that out of the way, on top of all of the other cuts that have been made over the years by this Government, and what we are seeing is sort of like a chair that has had one leg cut off and has then had another leg cut off. Slowly, but surely, this Government is wanting to see how long it is going to be before KiwiSaver just completely collapses and falls over, and New Zealanders lose confidence in it.

If there is one thing that I believe changing the commencement clause will do, it is that it will give people the ability to be able to say whether or not they want to keep this kick-start, and that would enable them—before the next election, according to the amendment that David Clark is putting forward—to make a fair and true decision on whether they want that $1,000 or not. I would say that just about everybody, of course, will want it, and they will want it not only for the dollar value that it represents but also for the fact that it represents our continuing to maintain the integrity of a scheme that is important over time.

We go into a superannuation scheme—as with this scheme in the past, but now people will not have the opportunity to do this any more—on the understanding that there is going to be a nest egg at the end and that the incentives for us to put our money into that scheme for that nest egg are going to be there. But we have had at least six different cuts made to KiwiSaver in the course of this Government. It has cut, for example, the minimum member contribution—that was in 2009. It has cut the member fee subsidy—that was in April 2009. It has cut the compulsory employer contributions. It has cut the employer tax credit, to disincentivise employers to put money into it. It has cut the member—

💬 Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this point of order under Speaker’s ruling 114/7. I have been listening to this member for some time. We are on a very narrow commencement clause of this particular bill, and this member is straying far from that. He needs to either come back to the commencement date or cease his call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, could you tell me the Speaker’s ruling?

💬 Tim Macindoe: It is Speaker’s ruling 114/7. It is the ruling of Rick Barker when he was the Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is a question of relevance, and relevance is a question that is decided by the Chair, not by a point of order. I might say, though, that I had come to that conclusion myself already and probably would have taken it into account as to the length of the debate. I was going to warn the next speaker that we are now talking about the date on which this bill comes into force. It is not a general debate on it.

Just to make that completely relevant, all of those cuts that I was talking about happened without warning. They all happened without warning. They all cut a scheme that people had confidence in, and that is why it is so important and so fair to ensure that the commencement date is out into the future so that at least people out there can make a decision that is informed, that is fair, as to whether or not they want to join this scheme. If we do not do that, the insidious erosion of confidence in KiwiSaver will continue to occur.

That is why I agree, in order of priority, with David Clark’s amendment and then Chris Hipkins’ amendment. Both of those amendments propose the commencement of this bill in the future, rather than having it imposed upon us retrospectively so that people who had been thinking about getting into KiwiSaver, toying with the idea of doing it, are now no longer able to enjoy the benefits of the $1,000 that would have been put into it.

This is, I believe, an undermining of a fabulous scheme. It was put in by the Labour Government. I agree that this Government has taken it and cut it and cut it and cut it. This bill is another example of that cut.

I rise to take a call on clause 2 of this bill, the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill. I think there are some Supplementary Order Papers on the Table that are fair and reasonable. Let us be honest. What we are asking with these Supplementary Order Papers in particular is for National to keep it real. Keep it real for New Zealanders about what you are actually doing here. You are quick off the hip when it comes to making legislative changes and very, very slow to give back those changes. What we are asking—and I spoke to this earlier on in my comments—is to think about those people and give them enough time to go in and register for KiwiSaver. It is not unfair or unreasonable to ask that. I would certainly like to get the words from the Minister. You will be pleased to see, Mr Chair, that I am wearing my pink tie. I am impervious to insult and injury today because, of course, this is my bully-proof suit, so I look forward to hearing from Simon Bridges, the Minister in the chair.

However, I would like to say that being fair and reasonable is absolutely what this Government should be. Does it stand scrutiny? What the Government is doing is taking it away so quickly that it is ripping the carpet out from underneath the feet of those New Zealanders who need to be looked out for. The Government is dressing it up and putting a bow around it, but, in actual fact, it is just putting lipstick on a pig. This does not fit in with what National says is standing up and being a voice for New Zealanders.

💬 David Bennett: This is another transgender comment, is it?

Apart from the absolute brain constipation that I get from the verbal diarrhoea from the other side of the Chamber from time to time—and I am specifically talking to you, Mr Bennett—we need to make sure that we are giving the people of New Zealand enough time to react to this quick-off-the-hip legislative change.

We have got Supplementary Order Paper 85 from my colleague Mr Fletcher Tabuteau, which makes sense—it absolutely makes sense. It is common sense to give people at least 2 years—2 years—to make some changes in order to get themselves into that scheme. In fact, we got it from Labour, and we got it from the Greens as well, to narrow it down—even to 1 year would be acceptable, and we would support that. Goodness me, we would support 90 days if this Government saw the sense in what that would do. You need to give the people of New Zealand some time to get in and get adjusted to this legislation, which is being force-fed down our throats.

We are in urgency at the moment, on a Saturday morning, and I am sure there are many, many people at home who are absolutely riveted to this. Watching this debate is like watching an All Blacks test match.

💬 Hon Member: It’s afternoon.

It is afternoon already. Goodness me! It feels like I have just arrived. You know, when I look at the indebtedness of this country, as of Tuesday it was $19,511 per New Zealander, and it has now gone up to about $20,000 per New Zealander. That is more indebtedness than Kaipara District Council had, at $10,500 per head of population, which sent it to the wall. Now, all of a sudden, under this legislation you are taking more money away from New Zealanders, making it harder for that debt to be repaid for our future.

New Zealand’s future is at serious risk. We spoke about the curve of having an aged population, a very skinny working population, and a very large and growing young population, which we are going to have to manage and maintain through schemes such as KiwiSaver. With the kick-start programme, 66 percent of people signed up to KiwiSaver because of that $1,000 kick-start—many, many people. I was fortunate enough to sign up to an AMP life insurance whole-of-life policy when I was 19 years old because it made sense and because there was nothing else that the Government was going to offer us back then.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to invite the member to come back to the clause.

I am going to come back to the time—

💬 Tim Macindoe: The member also needs to explain how this will stop us repaying debt. It seems to be his argument, but it makes no sense at all.

Righty-o. The reason why we suggested the name change for the bill of “#nofuture”, is that this is the time. If we do not start thinking about the future of our constituents, of the people of New Zealand, time will be running out, so I absolutely think that this Government should be supporting giving those people a longer period of time to sign themselves up to KiwiSaver. To say, retrospectively, that last Thursday was the cut-off point is absolutely wrong. I would love to hear from Minister Simon Bridges to see how he can justify that. He is nodding his head in agreement. It sounds like he might take a call. We would certainly like to hear from him. Just remember, I have my bully-proof suit and pink tie on today, so hit me with all of your best insults. Thank you.

In speaking to the commencement clause, if I were to choose a date, I would choose 5 August 2016 as the commencement date of this bill. I would do that because it would be a continuation of the legacy set in the 1970s—on 5 August 1976. Next year will be the 40th anniversary of the Government of the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon withdrawing the then-current superannuation scheme. To make further comparisons to that legacy, the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon said that that superannuation scheme was turning New Zealand into a Soviet clone. The comparison is that the Prime Minister John Key has said that KiwiSaver was “communism by stealth”. So here is a really tight comparison between that Government then and the Government now, and the legacy that the National Government continues today by trying to push through this legislation under urgency.

There was an article written in the New Zealand Herald before the 2008 election that warned the National Party not to go down the same path. Well, the genius of KiwiSaver, put in place by the Labour Government under Michael Cullen, was that it has taken this Government eight attempts, over 7 years, to try to get rid of KiwiSaver. The article I refer to ends with the words: “It would be a tragedy if a new National Government, under Key and English, made the same dreadful mistake as Muldoon in December 1975.” The Government has made that mistake over the last 7 years by making eight cuts to the scheme. So the commencement ought to be on that anniversary, to commemorate the 40 years since the National Government cut that superannuation scheme and denied our country of having a fund of $280 billion for a future for our children.

This piece of legislation, as has already been stated, steals from future generations. Well, I am part of the generation that that act of Robert Muldoon stole from—my generation and future generations—and the National Government is continuing to enhance that legacy. It is wrong.

I oppose this bill in its entirety, but I suggest that the commencement date ought to be 5 August 2016, to give ordinary New Zealanders the opportunity to have the same benefits that members opposite have had and that the whole of New Zealand ought to be able to have as well. That is my contribution to this part of the bill. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is my pleasure to take the first of what I hope will be a series of calls on this important bill, which is going to be bad for New Zealanders, bad for the New Zealand economy, and, actually, bad for our financial and saving institutions as well.

As you know, we are in the technical part of the debate here, where we are going clause by clause. I want to begin by offering some fairly narrow comments on the commencement date itself. This is an example of misplaced use of a retrospective commencement date. It is actually quite a confused clause in itself, because clause 2(1) says that the Act will come into force on the day on which it receives the Royal assent—but no date is provided, breaching what is a longstanding good-practice convention upheld by Parliament in its Regulations Review Committee. In clause 2(2), however, it says that “Section 4”—the operative section—“is treated as coming into force on 1 May 2015.” Given that that is prior to today, that ensures a retrospective effect. That means that a young Kiwi who today hears that this door is closing cannot now join KiwiSaver. It is too late, because Parliament, if it passes this bill, will deem that the door shut nearly 3 weeks ago. This is a retrospective instrument.

Why would you do that? Or why would the Government do that, when the argument that it has, ostensibly, for trying to take away the $1,000 kick-start contribution is that not enough people have joined the scheme and not enough people have saved? That is its argument. Of course, it is a fallacy, but that is what the Government is trying to convince New Zealanders of. If the Government set, as my colleague Chris Hipkins has suggested, a future close-off date, there would be a very strong incentive for anyone who is not currently a member of the scheme to join it. That would be a very good thing, and it would support the very objectives that the Government has said it espouses. It would encourage people to join the scheme and to save more, particularly those vulnerable or low-income people who to date have been the slowest to join. So setting a retrospective close-off prevents people joining and prevents the very objective that the Government says it holds.

Even better would, of course, be my colleague David Clark’s amendment, which is that the commencement date be deferred until after the coming election. Then it would never happen, because the chances of the Government getting returned have got to be very, very low. But, in principle, that would be a better option, because New Zealanders would have the opportunity to vote based on the information that the Government has given to them only after the election. The National Party did not campaign on stealing back the KiwiSaver kick-start contribution. Not one word was said about its eighth attempt to gut KiwiSaver. Not one mention was made of Robert David Muldoon wrecking the last Labour-led savings scheme, which, if we had kept, we would be a country as rich as Australia now. This is classic National Party “short-termism”.

Why has the Government got this commencement date? It is relying on a very late-to-the-piece evaluation by the Inland Revenue Department that was released concurrently with this bill—i.e., it has had no opportunity for peer review or public criticism. It has simply been fed into this retrospective measure. It is a very, very interesting piece of analysis, because it frames the question up front away from the broader objectives that the KiwiSaver scheme has had from its inception. Those objectives were really three-way: firstly, to help all New Zealanders save, and save more, for their retirement and their general financial well-being; and, secondly, to strengthen our domestic financial institutions so we have sticky, local capital that we can invest in Kiwi businesses and Kiwi jobs.

Members opposite are not focused on the debate; they are focused on the gallery. That is a very interesting thing, because this is a very—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

—far-reaching measure that affects millions of New Zealanders. It affects millions of New Zealanders.

The third objective for KiwiSaver has always been to improve New Zealand’s net savings position so that we reduce the current account deficit, strengthen our total balance sheet, and fit New Zealand for the future. And what is really interesting in the Inland Revenue Department’s analysis is that it has completely ignored 2½ of those three goals. It has ignored the broad fiscal savings gap issue and the current account deficit that flows from it. It has ignored the issues around the health of our financial institutions and our ability to invest in our own future.

I move, That the question be now put.

Yes, I think it is fair to say that we have had some repetition—quite a lot of repetition—and some irrelevance. I think some of the arguments have been elegant, but it has been a while since we have had anything new. The Committee can decide whether or not it wants to move on to the next clause.