Pillay Lynne: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7322. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of this legislation. Just to recap the purpose this legislation amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The whole intent is to make it easier for superannuitants and veterans to receive their superannuation or pension if they travel or in many instances work overseas. 
The provisions for these payments have been in place since 1 April 1990 but they provided only for a flat rate of 50 percent of the domestic rate of the payment at the time these people left New Zealand. Effectively New Zealand superannuitants and recipients of the veterans pension who travelled overseas received only 50 percent. In many instances that flat rate deterred retired people and veterans from travelling for any length of time overseas because it was just not possible for them to access the superannuation that they were entitled to because they had reached the age of 65 and were superannuitants or had served New Zealand and were on the veterans pension. It was a very unfair situation and one might say quite punitive. 
I am really pleased as is everyone in the House that from 2 November this will no longer be the case. Those people who travel overseas will not lose 50 percent of their pension; they will receive all of the pension that they are entitled to. I think that will be a major benefit to people who have reached retirement age or who have served New Zealand and have served it well. 
Along with my colleagues I am very happy to speak in support of this bill but at the risk of being just a little negative I will repeat what I said in an earlier speech in the House. I am concerned about how this measure will be funded. This increased benefit for recipients of superannuation and veterans benefits in New Zealand is something that all members in this Parliament support and that is a very very good thing but its funding is also very important. 
That is why it is very important to put money aside into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which we can call the Cullen fund to continue to fund New Zealand superannuation at the level that it should be funded. In the National Government’s Budget Labour members were very very concerned to see the deferral of payments into the fund. What does that mean? It means that the Superannuation Fund account is not receiving the money it currently needs to have. It means with the best will in the world that although we are now extending people’s rights with regard to superannuation which we have all acknowledged is good we now have a big question mark about the funding which is not good. We must ask how we will sustain the funding into the Superannuation Fund for generations to come as we continue I would hope to enhance these payments. 
I feel strongly about this and I urge the Government to reconsider the deferral of the Superannuation Fund payments to enable the fund to grow so that all these obligations can be met and will not cost future generations of New Zealanders in terms of their access and their rights to superannuation. I think that is important and I urge the Government to consider doing this. 
I know that after the Budget was released Treasury showed that Bill English’s plan to gut the Superannuation Fund by 50 percent meant that it would never be able to catch up. It means that in the future a Government—it would certainly not happen under a Labour Government but it could happen under more conservative Governments—could use that as an argument for attacking the rate of superannuation and the rights that are part of the superannuation package. 
Members opposite might say that is rubbish and that it is simply not the case. I would say to those members— 
Chester Borrows 
: We’d say: “How would you pay for it?”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Who said that? 
Chester Borrows 
: How would you pay for it in these conditions? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We are not bringing the Deputy Speaker into the question are we Mr Deputy Speaker? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we are not. 
Chester Borrows 
: How would Labour pay for it in these economic times? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Labour would pay for it but the member has just asked where Labour would get the money from. Labour would continue— 
Chester Borrows 
: That is the question; you’ve got it in one. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes because Government members are now asking quite openly where we would get the money from to maintain superannuation at its current level. What does that bring into question? Well it makes me ask what this Government’s agenda is. I ask what this Government’s agenda is when Government members are sitting on the other side of the House asking that. 
Chester Borrows is sitting on the other side of the House and saying that National has cut the contributions to the Superannuation Fund but if we want to maintain superannuation at its current level he is asking Labour members where they would get the money from. I find that pretty abhorrent. I have a lot of respect for Chester Borrows. I think that he is a good select committee chair. But I think he has quite unwittingly exposed the National Government’s agenda for superannuation in this country. He has asked where Labour would get the money from to maintain superannuation at the current levels. Is that correct? Is that the question the member is asking? 
Chester Borrows 
: The question is where would Labour get the money from to maintain the contributions to the super fund. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I find that quite reprehensible. It is an appalling statement to make. It is putting pensioners and future generations at risk. I must say to Mr Borrows that I am very very disappointed to hear that. You are the last member I would have expected that sort of statement from. I will find it very difficult in the select committee tomorrow to treat you with respect. I am really quite concerned about this. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I mean to treat the member with respect. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “Borrow” by name borrow by nature. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is “Borrow” by name and borrow by nature. I say to Mr Deputy Speaker that I have never had any trouble whatsoever treating you with respect and I will continue to do so. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Coming back to the matter in hand I am pleased that this bill is before Parliament. As I have said before this would have been a good bill to rush through in the 100 days of action rather than the one slashing KiwiSaver rates. But it is here now and I am supporting it. But the question I ask the Government is if these levels of payments are to be maintained then how will we continue to keep making those contributions to the Superannuation Fund? Thank you.