7. Superannuation Fund—Government ContributionsGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of FinanceSuperannuation Fund—Government Contributions7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Why did he break his commitment with respect to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when surpluses return we will resume contributions" and will he make restarting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund a higher priority than tax cuts?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I disagree. There has not been any broken commitment regarding the Superannuation Fund. We have said for some time that when the Government returns to a sufficient Budget surplus and can contribute genuine savings rather than borrowing National will resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The straightforward issue is that even when the Government shows surpluses under the operating balance before gains and losses measure it does not always have cash surpluses until those accounting surpluses get reasonably big.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer does he recall Sunday 31 May 2009 when he said to Guyon Espiner that "the Government would restore contributions to the super fund when surpluses return."? Is that not a breaking of a commitment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I remember that Sunday in 2009 in vivid detail in fact and constantly go back to it. The Government has outlined its position many many times since 2009 and when there are sufficient surpluses and when we have debt down to the levels we think are prudent which is 20 percent of GDP by 2020 then we will resume contributions which we would like to do. I am pleased to report to the member that because we took none of the Labour Party's advice we currently have the choice of making some contributions.Grant Robertson: Is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund correct when it says that as at 30 June this year the fund is—Hon Steven Joyce: Back on the burning issues!Grant Robertson: Do you want to answer Steven?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] Order! The interjections coming from Mr Joyce are certainly not helpful. They must cease. Would the member like to start his question again?Grant Robertson: I would. Thank you Mr Speaker. Is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund correct when it says that as at 30 June this year the fund is $20 billion less than what it would have been had contributions been continued?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. That is a hypothetical calculation. In any case the legislation does not give the Superannuation Fund the job of deciding when contributions are made; it gives this Parliament the job—and rightly so. Given that it is a long-term fund it is the return over 20 30 or 50 years that matters not the return over the first 10 or 15. It is just a hypothetical calculation.Grant Robertson: All right then. Is Treasury correct that the Superannuation Fund will be $36 billion short of what is required by 2030 and does he not think that making up for this should be a greater priority for surpluses than tax cuts?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have indicated contributions to the Superannuation Fund are among the choices that the Government has as well as the size and scope of those contributions. But Treasury cannot possibly know what a shortfall might be in 2030 because it does not know what decisions Governments will make under the legislation between now and then and it does not know about any of the other fiscal risks that might occur between now and then.Grant Robertson: Why is he being so irresponsible and reckless to put tax cuts ahead of providing a secure retirement for future generations when older New Zealanders are waiting longer and paying for operations and children are trying to do their homework by torch-light in a van because of the housing crisis? Are those things not more important than tax cuts?Mr SPEAKER: A series of supplementary questions—the Hon Bill English can answer any.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Right now those things are more important than ineffective Government spending that does not change lives in the way that we would hope it does. This Government has developed a wide-ranging tool kit to enable it to focus on the high-priority communities that need effective Government spending. In fact what we do with the $70 billion we already spend is much more important than what happens with the next $2 billion or $3 billion."