Franks Stephen: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3890] 
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.