Jones Shane: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4863] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in relation to the KiwiSaver Bill and I speak as the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which both considered and deliberated over this bill. Firstly I pay a particular acknowledgment to the officials from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development and the formidable team at the Inland Revenue Department who assisted the committee. When our committee is confronted with either proposed legislation or concepts that have a highly technical dimension to them we are reduced in many respects to trusting the quality of the advisers and the integrity of the work they do. Although there were moments of tension from time to time—as one would imagine in any creative process—I want it to go on the record that we were well served by that group of people. 
Of course this bill really endeavours to deal with a deeper problem that our economy has which is how to mobilise a pool of savings. Two schools of thought were trotted out in front of us. One was from the Business Roundtable which insisted that we read an ever-increasing number of tedious and unreadable reports produced by people who are ideologically opposed to the concept of a savings scheme such as this. I am happy to report to my colleagues in the House that I spent not one minute following the quality of advice in those reports. The second was from practitioners in the industry who are working on a regular basis with families up and down the country and who are confronted by the practical difficulties that mums and dads have when they become kaumatua grandfathers and grandmothers etc. The savings that those families have amassed in their lifetimes may be inadequate and the families are left to rely on the State-sponsored scheme. 
Those practitioners had a great deal of influence on my mind. They served up a host of very practical examples as to how a savings scheme—of a slightly different nature but serving a similar purpose—has worked to the benefit of the Australian economy. Indeed earlier this week in one of the financial dailies no one less august than a former captain of the New Zealand All Blacks team David Kirk pointed out that one of the key differences between our economy and that of Australia where he is spending most of his business career these days is that there is a very deep and extensive pool of available funds in Australia. That has assisted companies like Macquarie and the Westfield Group and the latter in particular has created great status and huge wealth by investing in the United States of America. So minds sharper and far more practically experienced than those of our friends from the Opposition are actually endorsing this scheme. 
What are some of the changes that have been made to the scheme? Firstly there was concern as to when participants should be enrolled and when they could bail out. The committee did move in a direction in which we sought to ensure that all workers with the exception of casual workers or agricultural workers will be signed up the moment they begin their jobs. From there they will have the opportunity within a 50-day period as I recall to opt out. In addition to that we had a great deal of debate over the 4 and 8 percent savings figures. In the end a number of us although persuaded by some of the passion I suppose associated with the arguments put forward by Jeanette Fitzsimons felt that the very small sum—dare I say the miserly sum—left in an account had we gone for the 2 percent figure would not really be a fund that would be handsome in any manner or form at the end of a person’s working life. 
Yes I note what Mr Copeland said earlier—the mortgage diversion option was discussed by our committee. As the report states committee members felt that the option had merit but time exigencies worked against us. I as the chair of the committee am happy to see that the option has arrived as a further improvement to this scheme. There is a fear that the scheme either will not be embraced or will not attract people to enrol in it and that employers may be tempted to work against the interests of the scheme. I do not agree with that in any manner or form. Employers have a great example to follow in terms of Fletcher Building which is itself putting money towards the savings of its employees. That of course will enhance the sense of loyalty and commitment that an employee has for that enterprise. I think the exaggerated claims about the attitude of the employer community are precisely that—exaggerations. This is a New Zealand enterprise and both employees and employers have a vital stake in making it work. 
Before I resume my seat I would like to say that members of the committee including Rodney Hide—who unfortunately we saw very little of; or fortunately depending on the mood of the day—worked quite collectively on this bill. Inevitably there were differences but I rather suspect that senior members of the Opposition have read the mood of the country well. The mood we saw in Jenny Shipley’s time when she campaigned up and down the country to undermine Winston Peters when she was meant to be in coalition with him no longer prevails. There is actually an acceptance out in the community built on the success of the Cullen fund that a savings scheme that enjoys a contribution from the State that is a shared responsibility of employers and employees that has a subsidy to assist in the administration of the scheme and that has State-sponsored literature etc. regarding the scheme—all those interests—will mean that the country certainly over my lifetime will be better heeled. It will be better prepared not only to reacquire assets that have disappeared disproportionately overseas but also to enhance a savings culture amongst our young people. 
There was such a culture I believe at the time when I went to school with the old Post Office savings scheme. There are two things or three that I remember about starting school. The first was my being the monitor who collected the milk. Some would say I have not moved a helluva lot beyond that! The second was learning about the establishment of the Post Office savings scheme and the third obviously was getting the strap on a regular basis. Well the strap has disappeared and the milk scheme no longer exists but thank goodness through our Government the savings scheme and savings ethic has been reintroduced and will grow as a consequence of this bill. Kia ora tatou.