Chauvel Charles: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Chauvel Charles: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:17825] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I understand that I have a few minutes with which to conclude the debate and it is a privilege to be able to do that. I will talk a little bit about superannuation. Everybody is very clear about this Government’s position on superannuation. Everybody remembers that we have restored a decent level of superannuation payment to ageing New Zealanders so that they can live in dignity and that is something we can be very very proud of. Mr Peachey may not be grateful for that particular pledge being fulfilled but he really ought to be. Through the Cullen fund and through KiwiSaver we have also taken steps to deliver a sustainable retirement income to New Zealanders in the future. Those are achievements that I am incredibly proud of. 
On the other hand National has no credibility whatsoever on superannuation. We remember that in 1999 National cut superannuation and blamed economic conditions. Just 3 days ago what did Mr Key say at the National Party conference? He said: “Today let me make a pledge: National will retain all the superannuation entitlements and eligibility rules that our senior citizens currently enjoy. We will keep that pledge and I will resign as Prime Minister and as a member of our Parliament rather than break it.” Well he will never have a chance to deliver on that promise. 
We all know what promises from the National Party are like because we remember Lockwood Smith’s promise in 1990 to resign over student fees. Well what happened then and what was that promise worth? It is just the same as the promise Mr Key made at the National Party conference. 
Of course Mr Key is trying to allay concerns about National’s position on superannuation after Mr English threatened it only a year ago. Let us remember what Mr English stated in July 2007: “If you compare ourselves with Australia—and it’s not too much different with any other developed country—we are starting to look pretty heavily committed to retirement income.” Then he stated: “The Australian pension is tightly income- and asset-tested and at a lower income … Ours is the highest level of the public pension that you will find anywhere and paid to everybody … There are a few other pensions that are pre-funded but none as generously as us.” Then he stated: “We are looking at a more balanced approach that focuses on growth prospects for our economy in the next five to 10 years not solely on saving.” and: “Savings are good but they are not the only thing and we can’t win the hearts and minds of 20-year-olds by telling them that the best thing about New Zealand is retiring into a plush rest home.” So Mr Key was trying to quarantine the National Party from those words of Mr English only a year ago. 
But were Mr English’s comments just a little too close to the real National Party policy? Let us remember what Mr Key stated in September 2004: “It is likely that there will be a modest increase in the age of super eligibility.” A year earlier he stated: “I don’t think there is any doubt that the single biggest way to reduce that liability is to raise the age of eligibility. I don’t think it is an impossible ask to look at doing that gradually and gently over time.” 
Well we all know Labour’s policy on superannuation and on all the other matters about which National is trying to talk out of both sides of its mouth. Superannuation is just one; fiscal policy is another as are tax cuts monetary policy interest rates exchange rate intervention broadband—the list goes on. But the people of New Zealand deserve to know the National Party’s policy on these matters if National even knows what it is. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to.