Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:291] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 This is a very sorry measure indeed. I begin by reflecting on the lack of consultation on this bill. I want us to consider the regulatory impact analysis team report on the regulatory impact statement. I think it is such a good report that I want to read it into the record. It states: “The Regulatory Impact Analysis Team has reviewed this Regulatory Impact Statement and considers it to cover the information required and to accurately reflect the analysis undertaken in relation to the proposal. The analysis itself is considered to be adequate in relation to the problem definition and the level of impact analysis undertaken (with information gaps having been explicitly acknowledged). However due to the timeframes involved the RIA consultation requirements have not been met.” We now have a Minister for Regulatory Reform and this is the first bill that has been through the office of the new Minister the Hon Rodney Hide. It is the first bill of the National - Maori Party - ACT Government and what does it do? It does not even meet the requirements of its own regulatory impact analysis. As long as information gaps are explicitly acknowledged then that is OK under this Government and under this Minister for Regulatory Reform. I can only say as a former Minister of Commerce what a disappointment this is. What a tragic disappointment! We all expected a lot from Rodney Hide because he had his bill in front of the select committee earlier in the year. But what a disappointment he has turned out to be.  
I remind this House that business welcomed the introduction of the KiwiSaver scheme with open arms—particularly those who recognised the need in New Zealand to grow real depth in our capital markets. They are appalled that National is passing this bill under urgency without proper consultation. All of them felt that there would be an opportunity for input either in terms of the bill before it was introduced or at least being able to make submissions to a select committee. This process is appalling. It does not meet anyone’s standards of appropriate regulatory impact.  
I want to ask a question of the Government. It is too late now for the answer to be provided but what do the default providers think of the cut from 4 percent to 2 percent? No one has mentioned that. No one has talked about the scale and scope of the KiwiSaver scheme as a whole and the impact that this gutting of the scheme will have on the default providers who quite legitimately put up their proposals to become default providers on the basis that it would be a “4 plus 4” plus Government contribution scheme. What do they say now that that cut has occurred? Will they be coming back to the Government to ask for some further changes to be made because the consultation has not been done? 
What does the Australian Government really think about the portability of a scheme that has been gutted by the incoming National - ACT - Maori Party Government? A statement from the Aussie officials has apparently been waved around by the odd member—and I use the word “odd” advisedly of the Government members—but not by Ministers so it did not have to be tabled in the House. That is not good enough. What does the Australian Government say about portability now? And why did the National Ministers not even think of asking the Australians about the portability arrangements before they gutted KiwiSaver? What sort of Government would campaign on bringing people home from Australia yet put at risk the millions of dollars that are sitting in accounts in Australia ready for repatriation to KiwiSaver accounts in New Zealand? There was no offer of portability before KiwiSaver and there is no guarantee of portability now. Why would someone come back from Australia anyway when the contribution is 9 percent and completely paid for by the employer? In New Zealand it was “4 plus 4” plus the Government contribution but now it is “2 plus 2” plus the Government contribution. I will come back to the Government contribution in a minute because I think there has been a shameful campaign by the National Party to cover up the real cutting to this scheme.  
I have listened to the nonsense of the Government saying that the KiwiSaver cuts are designed to make it accessible to low-income workers—that is the first time I have ever heard them be concerned about low-income workers. Never mind the fact that over 800000 members of KiwiSaver represents more than 150 percent of the actual Treasury estimates of what the KiwiSaver uptake would be! Apparently the 2 percent is there to help people who are not yet in the scheme to save yet National has budgeted not one cent for an increase in the number of savers. That is because it has no expectation of increased savers. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul.  
The lie that the unions asked for “2 plus 2” has been repeated over and over again. The unions asked to retain the original introductory measure that the Government provided for at the time: the entry level of “2 plus 2” increasing to the “4 plus 4” over 2 years that we had in place until this Government decided to rip the guts out of the scheme. But the that would have created a compliance nightmare for employers particularly those who had a high staff turnover. So actually it is a Labour-led Government that cares about the compliance costs of business—not the National Party at all.  
This has been ill-conceived from start to finish and it has been mounted on false premises every step of the way—just like hiding in the fine print the increased taxation required for those who are paying over the 2 percent contribution already and also implying that low-income workers contributing at 2 percent would still gain the full member tax credit at $1042.86 a year without mentioning that if one is earning $26000 a year and paying only 2 percent one will get $521.43.  
The whole point of the KiwiSaver scheme is that it has two elements to it. A mortgage scheme is built into it so that first-home buyers can use their savings over the first 5 years and get a Government contribution. But when one cuts the contribution that the workers and the employers are making then the money is not available for that deposit gap which is what it was designed to do. I am absolutely appalled that the Government has not come clean on the real issues that will confront those who expected to use their KiwiSaver accounts to buy their first home. I believe the Government should be held to account for this. Nowhere was that mentioned in the National Party campaign.  
Finally I say that business has again expressed concern that the research and development tax credit has gone without any opportunity for business to have a say. An optimistic statement at the end of the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association press statement on Tuesday morning says it all. It said—and it was very optimistic—“Hopefully the new Government will revise their ideas on the R&D tax credit and other policies that can better support their stated growth objectives for exports even in the face of the problems in the world.” Well that was gone by lunchtime was it not? Little did the association know that the bill had actually already been printed and it was not even going to a select committee. It had no chance to have any say. So this so-called business-friendly Government has failed to pass its first test and that is no credit to any member of the National - Maori Party - ACT Government. We expect them to shaft ordinary working New Zealanders. We are used to that over here; it is no surprise. But to shaft the business community and our capital markets— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence to the word “shaft”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: “Shaft” is a pretty standard New Zealand colloquial term and if we are to stop using terms of that nature then we will not need even a pocket  
Oxford Dictionary 
 in the front there; we can get ourselves a new very small version with a couple of hundred basic words which will include “crusade” “literacy” and “numeracy” but not much else. 
Chris Tremain 
: The word “shaft” has connotations. If we are to uphold a sense of decorum in this House I think we should refrain from words that have connotations of that nature. Derogatory expressions like the word “shaft” I think have a sexual connotation that is unnecessary in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can understand that members get concerned about language being used. I think the debate has been of very good tone; it has been robust and a very good debate. I do not want to rule too many words out in this House especially words that are in pretty general usage but I would urge members to be mindful that some people can find certain words unhelpful. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I said we expect the National Party to undermine the lives of ordinary working people. But we do not expect it to undermine business or to undermine our capital markets in its first day in office. No one would have expected that. The National Party has run a smoke and mirrors campaign but what is deeply disappointing is that the Maori Party has been conned into believing the rhetoric. There are huge disadvantages for the people it says it represents and it is shameful—shameful—that the homework has not been done in this case.