Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3881] 
Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 26 February. 
Part 1Preliminary provisions  ( 
continued 
)  
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
:  
I am really pleased to see that there is a change of Minister in the chair for the debate on Part 1. We have the Hon John Tamihere instead of the Hon Michael Cullen who seemed hell-bent on shutting down the debate which was interesting last night. Because of that fiasco last night the Committee spent 35 minutes on debating points of order because the Hon Michael Cullen would not allow the ACT member the Hon Richard Prebble to seek a call on the title of the bill. I find that really interesting.  
My understanding is that Part 1 indeed the whole bill is supported by all parties in the House. So why is the Labour Government so hell-bent on shutting down debate? One would think that it does not want to pass this legislation that modernises the practice that no person should be disadvantaged—in this case whether under the Government Superannuation Fund a widow or widower of a pensioner would continue to receive the benefit if the widow or widower happened to remarry. I am surprised because last night my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith believed that the title Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) did not clearly bring out the intention that is set out in Part 1. I believe that the Hon Richard Prebble should be entitled to seek a call on that.  
The Hon Michael Cullen made an accusation towards my colleague the honourable Dr Lockwood Smith who has spent 19 years in Parliament and has never been expelled from the Chamber. All he did was politely ask the Chair whether it was democratic to allow the ACT leader the Hon Richard Prebble to seek a call because the title of the bill does not clearly spell out what is set out in Part 1— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Could the member just talk about the bill. 
PANSY WONG 
: The bill is about whether a widow or widower who is entitled to receive the pension should not be disadvantaged if he or she chooses to remarry. One would have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable action but nothing is reasonable according to the minority Labour Government. I am still perplexed and hope that the Labour Minister the Hon John Tamihere is not still under a gagging order. I hope he will seek a call to explain to the public why the title of this legislation which seems to be well received by the House does not more clearly spell out the purpose that is set out in clause 3 which might enlighten people listening to this debate. 
The National Party is supporting this bill. As it has been 20 years since the passage of the last bill we think it is about time that society recognises that widows and widowers will remarry and seek another period of happy life. That should not jeopardise their entitlement under this bill to receive the pension. I hope this Minister who does have a reputation of speaking his mind and making his own decisions until his arm has been twisted will take a call to explain further to the public the background that leads to the purpose of the bill.  
I hope the Chairperson will also allow a few more calls from the various parties because we are witnessing one of those rare occasions where most parties—and I would say probably all parties—will support this legislation. But it is important that the Minister seeks the call to explain the issue further because last night some members raised a concern as to whether the investment is being made wisely. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is very good to see the Hon. John Tamihere given a job in this Parliament by the Government. I know that the Hon. John Tamihere will clearly and comprehensively rebut all claims that he has been muzzled by the Prime Minister Helen Clark.  
We are discussing Part 1 and I have some questions to raise with the Minister. I am hoping that he will dispel all those outrageous claims people have been making that the Prime Minister has jumped down the throat of the second to highest ranking Maori in her caucus and has muzzled him. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I want to raise a serious point of order. We are speaking on Part 1. The status of various Cabinet Ministers has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. I sat here last night for 45 minutes and I believe that the way this Committee behaved itself then—and I have spoken to many people today who listened on the radio—brought Parliament into disrepute. Madam Chair today I would like you to rule specifically that people stick to the point that they speak to the wording of the part and that they do not stray again into extraneous matters. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s not even a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I tell Mr Hide that I am on my feet and ruling on the point of order. Would he please be silent. The member is quite correct. I ask the member now to speak to clauses 2 and 3 and to stick to those clauses. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for the ruling. We are discussing clauses 2 and 3. I would like the Minister to take the next call and answer these questions. With regard to clause 3 how many spouses currently have their annuities suspended? Could the Minister take a call when I sit down prove to the world that he has not been muzzled and answer the simple question: how many spouses currently have their annuities suspended? Would the Minister do that?  
The second question is: what is the fiscal cost of this bill to the Crown? What will this bill cost the Government Superannuation Fund and what will this bill cost the taxpayer? I would like the Minister in the chair—[ 
Interruption 
] We now have an interesting situation. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Mr Copeland who is very very big about points of order is now having a serious conversation right beside where I am trying to give my speech. I would like you to rule as Speakers rule—that that is unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. A lot of people were speaking but the member should not be standing up. 
David Benson-Pope 
: It has to be within the order of the Committee and it is provided for in the Standing Orders specifically for the whip of one party—in this case myself—to discuss a procedural matter with a whip of another party. In this case it is Mr Copeland. 
Rodney Hide 
: Speaking to the point of order—  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. What we must ensure is that the conversation is not interfering with the speech of a member and it was close to the member. Please continue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I will recap my questions which Mr Copeland who has come down to the Chamber does not seem to be interested in. Firstly how many spouses have their annuities currently suspended? Second what will be the cost to the taxpayer? Third what will be the cost to the Government Superannuation Fund? I want the Minister in the chair who is collecting ministerial pay and pretending he is a Minister to stand in the Chamber and do his job while he is in the chair—that is answer some questions.  
Also I would like the Minister in the chair to put these costs into some sort of context. What does the cost of providing for these spouses—which I hasten to add the ACT party is supporting—mean in relation to the costs to the Government Superannuation Fund compared to what the fund has lost in the last 14 months? Under Michael Cullen the economic wizard of New Zealand the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million. The Minister Dr Cullen says that is not much; that is normal variance. Well $380 million is a lot of money. Given that this bill has been lying around on the Order Paper for months and months and now my colleague from United Future wants it to pass without debate it would seem I would like the Minister the Hon John Tamihere who has boldly taken up the chair to explain the cost of providing for these widows compared to what Dr Michael Cullen has lost from the fund in that time. I guarantee that we could look after a lot of widows and a lot of spouses who have remarried when we compare it to the $380 million that has been lost. We know that the Hon John Tamihere has plenty of ideas. He is bursting with ideas. He is busting with ideas. I want him to take a call and say: “Why don’t we decentralise and devolve the Government Superannuation Fund to Maori?”. Is it a good idea to devolve it to housing for Maori?  
I refer to clauses 2 and 3. Did that Minister when he was at the Cabinet table discussing this provision talk about his bold initiatives and ideas? Or do we have a case of a Minister who is a lion out in the electorate well away from the ninth floor well away from the Cabinet room but not prepared to speak in this Chamber? 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech but there are two points with regard to the point of order exchanges that have occurred that I want to remind the Committee of.  
Firstly Mr Copeland raised a point of order with regard to relevance. I think it is appropriate at this stage to remind the Committee that when members raise points of order of that nature they must be seen not to challenge the Chair. It is your prerogative alone as Chair to decide whether the member is relevant and it is your prerogative alone to draw that to the attention of the member and the Committee. The second point I want to make is with regard to the issue that was raised by the senior Government whip and that is the matter of exchange between whips particularly. Although it is true that we must take care to ensure we do not interfere with other speeches as we are carrying out our duties as whips in the Parliament there is a longstanding convention that whips acting in that capacity are unseen. So it is important that that convention remains because we do have duties that are peculiar and particular to the Parliament and the running of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. I think those points have been covered. The member raised a correct point of order. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I take pleasure in speaking to Part 1. Whenever New Zealand First members look at legislation we look at it in a very balanced and sensible way as we always have. As I look at the bill and listen to some of the speeches—I listened to Roger Sowry last night and to Pansy Wong and some others—I have to say that I think they are missing the purpose of the bill. I really have to make that point. This bill is not a massive and controversial piece of legislation that the Government is trying pass under our noses. As we are speaking to Part 1 I would like the read out the purpose clause but before I do that I do want to remind members that New Zealand First is a strong advocate for the fund to have more investment in New Zealand. Everybody knows that. We have even got a press release about it. 
Simon Power 
: What is the purpose? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: We have even got a press release about how we should invest more in New Zealand but this is the purpose of the bill— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No it’s not. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Dr Lockwood Smith wants to be all smart about it but if he would just listen to people who want to speak on the bill—[ 
Interruption 
] Pansy Wong is saying that I should speak to the bill. What did she talk about? Absolutely nothing! That just shows the substance of the National Party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to clauses 2 and 3. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Thank you Madam Chair. As a new member I do appreciate your guidance. The purpose of the bill is to remove inequities in treatment between members of the old schemes of the Government Superannuation Fund and the new schemes. That is pretty basic. One good point that Pansy Wong did make last night was that time had moved on. [ 
Interruption 
] If Dr Lockwood Smith is calling for me to speak to the bill I can tell him that I definitely am speaking on the bill. Pansy Wong as I remember was talking about the difference in treatment between the members of the old schemes of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the new schemes. The commentary on the bill states: “The purpose of the bill is to remove inequities in the treatment between members of the old schemes of the Government Superannuation Fund (GSF) and the new schemes. The bill seeks to remove an inequity in the treatment of widows and widowers with effect from 1 July 2002.” Time has moved on. There has been a need for us to update the legislation as it were. I am glad to hear that other parties are supporting this bill. New Zealand First as I have always said supports good legislation and opposes bad legislation. We think that this is good legislation. 
Simon Power 
: What’s it about? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Does Simon Power think that this is good legislation or bad legislation? 
Simon Power 
: What’s it about? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: No—I am on my feet. I ask him to tell me whether he thinks that this legislation is good or bad. He does not know. All he has is a question. He probably will not speak on this bill. I do not think that that member heard me when I said what the purpose of the bill is. He is asking me to tell him about the bill. If the member had listened he would have heard what I said about the bill. That just goes to show the substance of the National Party. Simon Power really wants me to spell it out to him—specifically about Part 1. There must be something I do not know because I thought he had been here for at least one term before I was.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I rise with some trepidation to speak on Part 1 because when I was speaking on the title only last night I managed to be evicted from this Chamber for the first time ever in 19 years in this Parliament. So I fear this bill may bring me bad luck but despite that nervousness I will do my best to address Part 1.  
Part 1 covers the commencement and the purpose of the bill. The commencement clause is interesting because normally the commencement date indicates a little bit about the Government’s legislative programme. What is interesting is that the commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal 
assent.” What is interesting about that clause is that it shows that the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles. The Government has no idea when this bill is going to come into force—none whatsoever. What is more the fiscal cost of this bill gets greater every week that it does not come into force because the bill goes back to July 2002. So the estimated cost of the back-pay shall we say gets greater with every week that goes by. The Government has no idea when it will get this bill through the Parliament—the bill demonstrates that quite clearly. The Government’s legislative programme is in a shambles. The Government cannot specify a date when the bill is to come into force so it just says that that will be on the day after the date on which the bill receives the royal assent. That is a way of saying: “We haven’t got a clue and that’s the only safe way to put it.” That is the first thing I would say in respect of Part 1. Clearly it demonstrates that the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles.  
The other clause in Part 1 is clause 3 “Purpose” which is I think what my colleague from Rodney Mr McNair from New Zealand First was trying to describe— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do apologise for interrupting the honourable member on his feet but throughout Craig McNair’s speech and now during Dr Lockwood Smith’s speech a conversation has been going on between two MPs. It is not a short conversation; it has gone on for some time and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member himself was speaking quite loudly. Indeed I nearly called for order when Mr McNair was speaking so I suggest that the member refrain from raising those sorts of points of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member be seated. I will not entertain spurious points of order. I am warning the member now.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What I want you to do is point out to members that if they are going to engage in a long conversation—and successive Speakers have ruled on this—they should go into the lobby. I am not actually complaining but it is very hard to hear. The conversation has gone on now through two speeches and I think it is quite within the rules for the Chair to point that out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. There were several conversations going on including his own as I pointed out.  
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. May I suggest that you ask those members who are having lengthy conversations to have them outside the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes certainly. They are aware of that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. If it is a point of order on what I have ruled on— 
Rodney Hide 
: No it is not. It is a point about consistency. I raised precisely that point of order. You did not rule in my favour. I know that Mr Dail Jones is probably more eloquent than I am and probably has more legal training than me but he raised the point of order and you accepted it. What is going on? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member is raising trifling points of order and he will desist. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Clearly the purpose clause does change the Government’s fiscal position because it provides the annuity to be paid to spouses after they remarry. It means that the old arrangements under the 1956 Act become consistent with the amendments that were made when the new schemes were brought in in 1985.  
I do have a question for the Minister and I want him to answer the question that my colleague Rodney Hide from ACT asked him. The commentary on the bill has not spelt out the fiscal costs. There clearly is a fiscal cost. Most members support the bill but we deserve to know what the fiscal cost is. I expect the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere to inform us of the fiscal cost. We know that he is in the chair because he is being punished. He is being punished for being a naughty boy and for saying things that the one who is not to be questioned—the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark—does not approve of. We know that. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have already been down that road once this afternoon. Those comments are irrelevant to the part of the bill that is under discussion and need to be ruled out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I do not need any assistance. The member will keep to the issues in the part being debated.  
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not need any assistance. Please be seated. It is my decision whether to accept a contribution to a point of order and I am not accepting your contribution to this point of order. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. It is quite appropriate to be asking the Minister in the chair questions when— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well what’s your ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. The member is continuing to challenge the Chair. The member has been warned. The member will now leave the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: How long for? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be no further comments on rulings I have made. The member will leave the Chamber until 10 to 6.  
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: If one were to read the purpose of this bill one would find that it has a fiscal cost associated with it. My colleague whom you have just demanded leave the Chamber asked the Minister two speeches ago to tell us what— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member be seated please. It is against the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 for a member to refer to my ruling that a member withdraw from the Chamber. Please continue.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My huge apologies Madam Chairperson. The fact is that my colleague asked the Minister two speeches ago to inform us of the fiscal cost of the purpose of this bill. A closure motion was moved before the Minister had even responded to Rodney Hide. Why is the Minister refusing to answer that question? Is it because the Prime Minister has muzzled him? Does he not have a note from the Prime Minister telling him what he can say on this bill?  
If he continues to refuse to answer questions on the bill the only conclusion we can come to is that he has been muzzled by the Prime Minister and therefore will not answer our questions. When a fiscal cost is associated with the purpose of a bill we are entitled to have that answer from the Minister in the chair. I want the Hon John Tamihere to tell us whether he is allowed to answer questions on this bill or whether we are just wasting our time. Does he have the Prime Minister’s approval to speak on this matter or has she forbidden him to speak on this matter? If the Prime Minister does not allow John Tamihere to speak on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) he should get out of the chair and let into the chair a Minister who will answer our questions and does have the approval of the Prime Minister to talk on this issue. It is not within the procedures of this Committee for the Minister to ignore valid questions. Sure the Minister can ignore stupid questions but a question about the fiscal cost of the purpose of this bill is a perfectly valid question. The fiscal cost is not mentioned and is not in the commentary on the bill. If members read the commentary on the bill they will see that it tells us how many people might be involved and how many children might be involved but there is no estimate of the fiscal cost. It should be in the commentary on the bill. It is a fair and valid question for that Minister to answer. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 39 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Spouses’ annuities and children’s allowances 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 2 goes into some depth about the exact changes the effect of those changes and the time frame of those changes affecting surviving spouses and also children. Even though this is a small bill it is a bill that is supported by all parties in the House. The Government Administration Committee of which I am a member received submissions from the Government Superannuitants Association; the Law Society who provided a very good technical amendment which we accepted; and also the National Council of Women. I draw members’ attention to the submission made by the council. Although in general it supported the intention of the bill it raised two very valid questions. 
The first question was about when the changes would take place and the second dealt with an issue that is not answered in the commentary on the bill. The Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere should take a call and answer that question. The council raised the issue of whether those changes will apply only to children under the age of 16. The council said that sometimes children over the age of 16 are still financially dependent and asked why they are excluded from the entitlement. The officials told us—and we included the answer in the commentary—that discretions can be made to apply those entitlements to children over 16 years. But what are the criteria? We cannot find the answer anywhere in the commentary.  
The National Council of Women has always been very diligent in making good substantial submissions. This submission was made by three joint standing committees of that council which had a very genuine concern about the welfare of children who may be over the age of 16 but are still financially dependent. We were told by the officials that discretions can be made by the Government Superannuation Fund to ensure that those children get an entitlement under the scheme. But nowhere have we found the criteria. So the Hon John Tamihere the Minister in the chair must stand and answer the genuine questions posed by submitters about the criteria for those children who are still dependent. How do they know whether they are entitled to that discretion—that waiver—under the Government Superannuation Fund which their parent had subscribed to?  
The Minister should answer. It will be a sad day when a Minister is in the chair but simply as a punishment because he somehow upset the Prime Minister Helen Clark and then refuses to answer valid questions. Every Minister who earns a salary as they do and sits in that chair has an obligation to answer valid questions raised by members of Opposition parties. In this case the questions have been raised by the public. The National Council of Women spent time making submissions and wanted answers but the arrogant minority Labour Government puts a Minister in the chair who knows nothing about the bill will not consult the officials and refuses to answer questions from people who might be affected by these changes. How do they know? Where do they go to apply for these discretions? Even if they are over the age of 16 and financially dependent where do they go and who do they ask? How do they know whether they might fit the criteria for that provision to be uplifted? I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to continue to sit there not answering genuine questions raised by a member of Parliament especially when the questions are raised on behalf of a substantial organisation the National Council of Women. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Dr Lockwood Smith had a very good point last night when talking about how only 800 adults and 19 children were affected by this bill. But even though it affects such a small number of people it is still very important legislation which is why New Zealand First will support the bill in its entirety. We support the aim of the bill which is to repeal the provisions of the Government Superannuation Fund Act that suspend the payment of benefits to widows or widowers in the event of remarriage and provide for the restoration of suspended benefits under those provisions. We also want to put on the record that we support the replacement of the prescribed fixed allowance paid to children of deceased members under the old scheme with the inflation-adjusted allowance provided for in the new scheme.  
Once again we feel this is a very important bill. It does not really matter how many people it affects; it is still very important legislation and I am very proud on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues to support the bill. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 We are privileged now to have the Minister of Finance who has deigned to return to the Chamber to sit in the chair on his bill. Maybe we might now get some answers now that the muzzled John Tamihere is no longer in the chair.  
Part 2 spells out the details of this bill and there are a couple of issues I would like to ask Dr Cullen about. He will note that during the work of the select committee clause 4(6)(b) was struck out. The commentary states that the committee struck it out to avoid confusion. I would like the Minister to look at that and satisfy himself that it was the right thing to do. Subclause 6(a) spells out that a person is entitled to an annuity under the provision of the principal Act but as I read clause 4(6)(b) the amount of that annuity should be as if the person had been in receipt of all the adjustments to the annuity over time. In other words if those adjustments are not taken into consideration is the Minister satisfied that the legislative provision for the amount of the annuity is secure? When the bill was originally drafted it is pretty clear that subclause 6(b) was put in there to make sure that the amount of the annuity that would be paid was clarified—not just that a provision was being made to pay an annuity but that the amount was to be at a level that included all the adjustments made since the new schemes came into being in 1985. I would be interested in the Minister taking a call to advise us whether he is satisfied that clause 4(6)(a) on its own covers that aspect. I think it is quite important. We do not want to be passing legislation that provides for an annuity but does not actually tell the recipients how much they are entitled to.  
During the earlier debate Opposition members asked a perfectly valid question about the cost of this legislation. It is important because payments under the Government Superannuation Fund are defined benefits so regardless of what happens to the fund the benefit will be paid out. It is an important protection to those who receive annuities from such a scheme. Now with the scheme having lost so much money in the last 14 months—what is it $380 million?—there is an issue about whether taxpayer funds will have to be used to enable the scheme to meet all its commitments. It is a defined-benefit scheme and commitments have to be met. If they cannot be met from the scheme directly as I understand the law they must be made up by the Crown.  
Those are the two things I would appreciate the Minister answering in respect of Part 2. The first is whether he is totally satisfied that the omission of clause 4(6)(b) does not leave any loose ends about the amount of an annuity a remarried spouse or any children might be entitled to under this bill. The second thing is whether given the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost a lot of money and is a defined-benefit scheme there are any fiscal consequences for the Crown from this legislation as we look ahead.  
Those are perfectly reasonable questions to be asking and I hope the Minister of Finance is in a better position to answer them than the Minister of Youth Affairs who had been instructed that he was not allowed to make comments on areas outside his own portfolio. I guess he was too muzzled to answer our questions and somewhat punished by being put in the chair on a bill that was not his. I am sure that if those questions could be answered there would be a fair bit of satisfaction in the Chamber that Part 2 is in reasonable shape and therefore worthy of the support of the Committee. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I think the member has raised a couple of quite reasonable questions and I apologise for not having been in the chair. I have been to the dentist so I apologise if I am slightly incomprehensible; the effect of the injection I had is still wearing off.  
I am perfectly satisfied about the consequence of the removal of paragraph (b) in subsection (6) of clause 4. That means that the full amounts will be paid. Certainly the Government Administration Committee was told that there could be a conflict of interpretation between paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) but clearly the full amounts will be paid backdated to 1 July 2002.  
The fiscal issue is quite an interesting point but it is not affected by the short-term performance of the fund. Indeed an appropriation had to be made for that particular provision in any case—obviously in the 2002 Budget—because it comes into force on 1 July. The technical issue surrounding it was whether we had to accrue the full long-term net present value if one likes of the change in benefit. That would have been counted—I think it was $25 million—in one lump which would have been quite difficult to do in any one year. In the end it was determined that under the accounting rules it could be done on an annual basis—I think between $2 million and $2.5 million. But it is fully an appropriation because it would not under any circumstances affect the amount to be transferred from the fund so the additional amount has to be borne by the Crown account.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to ask another question about Part 2. I do so aware that the Government Administration Committee may have examined this matter and that there may be members present in the Chamber who could easily answer the question. However the Committee stage is the right time to find out about it.  
There is a statement that the purpose of the bill is to restore fairness and equity. I am never quite sure in this context whether those words mean anything other than the same thing or indeed whether they mean anything at all. They seem to be thrown in when people want to say “this is a good thing” and it is not clear at all that they had a particular unfairness in mind. But in a bill that is achieving fairness and equity I am puzzled by the fact that the adjustments are backdated only to 1 July 2002. Surely if it is unfair now it was unfair before that date. If it was unfair sufficient to justify what from the perspective of the recipients must be a windfall—because they will now have an entitlement that they never had before—then why do we limit the redress of unfairness to 1 July 2002?  
That is particularly interesting because one imagines that the Government Superannuation Fund—at least when it was originally established—had some sort of actuarial foundation. There was some kind of relationship between the trade-off members made in their primary salaries and what they saw as the benefit of their pensions. At the time when members were paying into the fund it was seen as fair that one provided for a spouse but that spouses who remarried would be provided for by the new partner. Therefore there was no perceived unfairness at the time. What we are doing now is revisiting history to apply our current ideas of what is fair and unfair across financial arrangements that were made in quite different circumstances.  
I am quite prepared to accept that the conscience of the Government sees it as important to change the rules now and apply a new sense of fairness but why is there no back-payment? What is the justification for choosing 1 July 2002 as a cut-off date and not 1 July 2001 or 1 December or any other date? If this were not just a matter of politics if there were some reason that it is fair from 1 July 2002 but not before I would have expected the select committee to mention the principle on which it made that assumption in its report. Instead there just seems to be assertion as though it were absolutely self-evident.  
Not having sat on the select committee or been present in the earlier part of the debate I imagine that that is the sort of thing the Minister in charge of the bill should be able to address very easily in the Committee stage. He should be able to explain exactly what that principle is how those members’ sense of fairness is not outraged by their loss before the start date and how they feel assuaged now—to the point where not only is inequity being addressed but also unfairness whatever the difference between those two is. Perhaps the chairman of the select committee that advised that this bill achieved fairness and equity could help us by explaining what the committee meant. Certainly there are members of the select committee present including its deputy chairperson. I am sure she would be quite happy to explain in terms of removing discrimination just what was significant about the date of 1 July 2002.  
Of course when the word “discrimination” is thrown in we are all supposed to genuflect and suspend reason because discrimination of all kinds is inherently wrong—even according to this Government discrimination against bad people. We are not to discriminate against criminals.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Procedure 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House at this point to move directly to the third reading of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is objection.