Wong Pansy: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12564] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The National Party will support this bill to the Social Services Committee. However I would like to point out that the explanatory note of the bill under the heading: “Results of the consultation” states that the National Party was very serious in raising the issue of the desirability of requiring the Retirement Commissioner to undertake a regular overall stocktake of retirement income issues and then to report it preferably with that reporting timetable linked to the statement on long-term fiscal position proposed in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. 
Some of the previous debates have been wide of the mark. This bill acknowledges that the superannuation accord has not been in operation for many years and that it transfers the Office of the Retirement Commissioner to the jurisdiction of this bill. I have some concerns and the National Party raised the very good point about this retirement office that in order to be seen to be independent and have integrity commenting on the various retirement income policies it has to report directly to Parliament and be subject to public scrutiny. 
 I raise that because section 93 “Functions” in new Part 4 inserted by clause 6 states that the functions of the Retirement Commissioner include: “(a) to develop and promote methods of improving the effectiveness of the retirement income policies from time to time implemented by the Government in New Zealand …”. 
Another thing I observed was that in section 95(2) the Retirement Commissioner may if he or she chooses “(b) deliver to the Minister a report in writing on any retirement income that he or she considers the Minister should be advised of.” Subsection (3) goes on to state that the Minister must after receiving such a report present a copy of it to the House of Representatives. But as that requirement is qualified by the words “as soon as practicable” there is no guarantee that the Retirement Commissioner after choosing to table the report or to bring it to the attention of a Minister on any retirement income-related policy will do so in order that it might reach the House of Representatives in a timely fashion. Also in the bill we find that when the Minister requires it he or she can ask the Retirement Commissioner for a report. Once again the time and the speed of that report being made public by the House of Representatives is not guaranteed. 
So I think that a provision that the select committee should look at adding is one that requires at a regular interval the tabling by the Retirement Commissioner of a stocktake of the overall Government retirement income policy. This would add credibility and integrity to the independence of that office. 
I raise that matter because I think various speakers have acknowledged that the Labour Government’s current superannuation fund has actually led to a reduction in overall savings by individuals. The reason is that there is a misleading impression that the retirement issue has been resolved leading to various independent reports stating that the amount of private savings has reduced. This matters because for various lifestyle reasons or necessity individuals are well advised to supplement the State pension with their private savings. 
Let us look at the type of Labour Government policies that hinder that or that are detrimental to it being possible. Last weekend’s  
Sunday Star-Times 
 as I think most people would now be aware reported the case of a high school teacher in a one-income working family who earns $55000 and with four children finds it difficult to make ends meet. In effect the parents are now thinking about moving to Australia to improve their situation. They have written a letter to the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark asking her to explain and help them resolve their dilemma. They do not want to go on the benefit or become a low-income family. The husband earns $55000. I thought it was quite a depressing picture with the mother having to go without purchasing any new personal items for herself. 
Let us look at what happened under this Labour Government. First of all we find that for individuals to be able to save they have to earn enough. We know that right now with the Labour Government giving up on economic growth that New Zealanders earn on average $180 less a week than the Australians. That is per week! Apart from that there is the amount of tax that has to be paid. Ever since the minority Labour coalition Government came into power taxes have increased. Fifteen new taxes have been introduced—not only the marginal high personal income tax but various taxes such as tax on petrol and liquor. Anything that moved the Labour Government seemed to whack a tax on and it has forgotten that individuals also have to pay GST meet local government rates and so on. It is not only individuals who are paying more in taxes but also companies. 
There is also the way in which our tax money is being spent. Increasingly we hear horror stories about money going towards funding junkets overseas such as looking at some hip-hop music or in providing community education courses. There has been an astronomical growth in so-called community education courses being offered by institutions but one would doubt very much whether they will improve any individual’s earning capability. At the same time we are finding that our hospital waiting lists are growing and people increasingly are not getting the medical treatment they expect to receive. 
So tax is a real issue. It is an issue that affects an individual’s capability to earn and it also means we are losing our potential high-income earners. Every day constituents are telling us how their children are going overseas to Australia Britain and the USA because they perceive that the opportunity in those countries is much greater than in New Zealand. The difficulty in getting a job is also due to changes to our employment law. 
Most of the small business employers we talk to employ only up to five people. They cannot afford to improve or increase their businesses because of difficult employment law. We saw the saga of the long weekend at Easter—the Labour Party’s so-called gift to the working people. The Restaurant Association told us that during that weekend 30 percent of restaurants and cafes chose to close. Twenty percent opened with fewer staff. It therefore led to less employment and fewer opportunities for these people to save. 
Now we know that the minority Labour Government—[ 
Interruption 
]—if the junior whip would listen. If he wants to take a call we would be happy to hear him in his own time. In the coming May Budget the minority Labour Government will be trying to buy votes. It says it will be giving money away to the low-income working family. It needs to be warned that if it further erodes the differences between wages and benefits then that will be a further disincentive for hardworking individual New Zealanders to work. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theSocial Services Committee.