Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20083] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It is perhaps providential that we are discussing the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill in a week when the subject of superannuation is very much on people’s minds and very much within the scope of the media because of the national Grey Power conference in Rotorua. It is a very important subject because currently more than 480000 New Zealanders are recipients of New Zealand superannuation. We also know of course that the demographics of our nation are such that over the next 30 years or so the number of people on superannuation in New Zealand will approximately double to more than 1 million. So by any standards superannuation is a matter of very very serious concern for this Parliament and one that all parties in the House need to continue to bend their minds and their wits to in order to ensure that we have the best possible superannuation arrangements for our elderly people as we move forward—always reminding ourselves that some of us are also approaching the age when we will become recipients of New Zealand superannuation. 
United Future will support the second reading of this bill and its passage through all remaining stages. But I do regret that it marks the formal end of the superannuation accord that was hammered out during the 1990s. Yet it need not be the end because under the New Zealand Superannuation Act there is an ability for each party in this House to sign up formally to a new accord on superannuation. The Minister of Finance Dr Cullen formally reported to the House in 2003 what the positions of the various parties were in relation to signing up formally to Part 1 and Part 2 of that Act. 
I need to explain what “signing up formally” means. The process is that the party actually writes a formal letter to the Minister of Finance in which it states that it supports Part 1 and/or Part 2. When the Minister reported to the House he said that the Labour Party its coalition partner the Progressive Party and the United Future party had signed up to both Part 1 and Part 2. So at that stage we were far from having a new accord supported by all parties in this House which I believe is the goal we should all strive towards. 
In my first reading speech on this bill I challenged the National Party in particular to sign up formally to the new superannuation accord. I really challenged National to put something positive forward to the New Zealand community because at that stage the only slight hint of its policy was from National leader Dr Don Brash. He basically said that National disagreed with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as defined in Part 2 of the Act and that as far as Part 1 was concerned he was not sure about the fund and had doubts about whether it would be sustainable for people at 65 years of age. So the message from him was that people might have to wait until they were older than 65 before they got New Zealand superannuation. 
I am actually quite pleased that in the months since then the National Party seems to have moved its position—I think very sensibly. John Key has certainly come out now and said quite openly that National does now support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund commonly nicknamed the “Cullen fund”. But I have yet to establish whether National has formally said that to Dr Cullen. I doubt whether it has. I am not and nor are the people of New Zealand aware of whether National has formally signed up to Part 1 in relation to 65 percent of the average weekly wage for married couples at 65 years of age. I note from press reports that Don Brash seems to be signalling that National will go with that so I say that he should take the next step and get National formally signed up. 
As far as New Zealand First is concerned—and its members can speak for themselves—my memory is that it has signed up to Part 1 but not to Part 2. I say to those members during this debate: “How about signing up to the new accord so that we take superannuation off the political football field and give New Zealanders the kind of certainty they need in terms of planning for their retirement?” 
The point we need to emphasise is that until we create some certainty around this issue for people entering retirement in the next 25 years then it is difficult for them to make sensible decisions about their own savings. I for one want to encourage New Zealanders to make private provision for superannuation because let us face it one cannot live very well on New Zealand superannuation. 
The Green Party has just made its position clear. It supports Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act but not Part 2 namely the “Cullen fund”. The Greens do not support that fund. It is therefore incumbent on them in particular to explain to New Zealanders exactly how they intend to fund future superannuation liabilities. The fact is that superannuation liabilities will increase from about $5 billion a year to in today’s dollar terms more than $10 billion over the next 25 years and any credible political party really has to say how it intends to fund those if it does not support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
I was staggered to hear the remarks from the ACT party member Deborah Coddington in her speech. She said that she also thought that superannuation should stop being a political football. Yet alone amongst all the parties in the House it is the ACT party that has refused to sign up to either Part 1 or Part 2. I want to say to ACT members tonight that it is time to start walking the talk. There is no point in them coming along here participating in a debate and saying they believe that superannuation should no longer be a political football if in their back pocket they not only have the ball but are also intent on running in a different direction from all the other parties in this Parliament. 
United Future has a very positive outlook in terms of New Zealand superannuation. It is our policy that we would change Part 1 of the superannuation accord so that we improved its terms. At the moment when the superannuation rates are struck on 1 April every year they are based on movements in the cost of living and in wages up until the preceding 31 December. So they are always retrospective. Our policy is to make those rates prospective by forecasting them for the applicable year moving forward which would put an extra $10 per week into the pockets of a person on the married couple superannuation rate—that is $10 for each married person which is $20 a week for a married couple—and it would give a single person living alone an extra $13 a week. I am able to say in this debate that that is United Future’s policy and we aim to amend Part 1 to bring about that improvement. It is a technical amendment if you like but it has a significant pay-off for New Zealand superannuitants. 
We also strongly support the idea of savings from the cradle to the grave. It is our policy for people to open a bank account for a baby when it is born and to keep contributions going into that account right through that individual’s life so that he or she can save for tertiary education maybe for a home then finally for superannuation. Deborah Coddington said that David Skilling of the New Zealand Institute picked up that idea from Roger Douglas. I am very surprised to hear that because as far as I am concerned the author of the idea was Bernie Ogilvy my colleague who is sitting right next to me in the House today. It was Bernie Ogilvy who did some creative thinking in our party about that and who came up with that idea. 
We will adopt that as policy so that we add in every way we can to the prospect of as many New Zealanders as possible having the security of a reasonable income in their old age thus allowing them to meet the health costs involved in that stage of life and generally to see out their remaining days in this world with a reasonable degree of comfort. That is my vision for all elderly New Zealanders.