Foss Craig: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4919] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on one of the earlier speeches in which Dr Cullen mentioned that he wanted savings to be compelling and not compulsory—that this was not a scheme of compulsion. I tend to argue that that is not absolutely clear because there are compulsion traps all over this bill. It may be an opt-out bill but if say under this bill someone starts a job tomorrow and has 2 weeks to opt out that is OK the person is out. In a year’s time the person starts a new job and is asked again whether he or she wants to opt out. The choice is made to opt out and that is fine. 
However if someone starts a new job tomorrow and chooses to opt in that is fine. The person is in the scheme. If the person starts another job in a year’s time he or she is still in. The person could take a holiday or do the mortgage diversion scheme but he or she is still in. So talk of it being voluntary nice and gentle and just helping everyone on is not the total truth. This is almost compulsion by stealth. 
During the consideration in the Finance and Expenditure Committee the officials pointed out the number of new job events a year and I was staggered. I think they said there are 1.1 million new job events every year. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Every year 1.1 million job events. We tried to get to the bottom of that and maybe someone could explain it further. That represents 1.1 million KiwiSaver events every year so who will be doing the compliance and work on that? It will be good old small business of course. They have to make their affairs correct in the eyes of the Inland Revenue Department and supply different pamphlets information etc. to their employees—1.1 million times. Fair enough there may be some casual labour in that number but even at half of the 1.1 million I just find that absolutely staggering. 
We must compliment the Minister on the 110 weeks to save for her ice-skates at 40c a week I think it was. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No an hour! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: An hour? Oh I am sorry. I totally misheard the Minister. Excuse me! There is a very important issue in Part 2 and that is around default KiwiSaver providers. The select committee had a lot of discussion about this part of the bill particularly around the process of how those providers would be chosen. There seems to be confusion and I have different press releases and comments from Ministers made at different times and in different speeches. It is clear there will be about four to six default providers. The finance Minister Mr Cullen is on the record as saying something along the lines that it will be very hard for any of those default providers to not make money out of the KiwiSaver scheme. Goodness gracious me! With the announcements made last Thursday particularly the mortgage diversion scheme it should be quite impossible for anyone not to make money as a default provider. 
I would like to read from the commentary on the bill because what happened was that the tenders the contracts and the request for proposals for default providers actually went out in advance of consideration of the bill in advance of finalisation of the bill and of course therefore in advance of the bill being reported back and passing through the House. That was the form of the bill referred to the committee. Those businesses out there that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars preparing a tender and their systems to the tight time frames that this bill demands—even with the 3 to 6- month extension—did so before they even knew they had to factor in mortgage diversion. 
National speakers used the words “abuse of process” earlier on and this is yet another example of the ends trying to drive the means whereby the select committee process has been totally overruled by a roughshod administration. It just wanted to get this thing out so it could grab some good headlines in a week where the Government’s polling is absolutely plummeting. Further to the default provision I would like to read from the commentary: “Some members”—and that includes members in addition to National Party members on the committee—“were concerned that the Government progressed the default provider provisions of the bill matters on which submissions were received prior to the select committee reporting back to the House.”