Tabuteau Fletcher: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3783. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): All this Budget did was remind me of the movie Groundhog Day. It was the same old promises and the same old apathetic thinking that we have come to expect from this Government. This is the same Budget we have seen for the last 7 years. I believe—I genuinely believe this—that the former National leaders who ran this country in their time are turning in their graves right now. Although those former leaders rose and fell on their principles and on what they believed in—what they believed in—this Prime Minister plays the politics of focus groups and plays superficial lip-service to what are critical issues in New Zealand. He is doing all he can to appease the masses. He compromises what wasonce a very long time ago actually a great party.Yet again we were promised a surplus. When the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking earlier yesterday I put it to some of the backbench National MPs that the finance Minister will never actually reach a surplus during his time serving in that role. I made the challenge and what was the answer? Well it was quite similar to now. I was expecting more of a response. Those National MPs went quiet. They went very silent. The derogatory shouting evaporated. It became a very quiet House to be in.This bill the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill is a simple onetechnically but the repercussions of it are quite significant and they will have huge consequences into the future. Without doubt this country will be undermined by yet another short-sighted decision supposedly to save on the bottom line in the moment. We are saving on the bottom line in the moment. What confused a few people who were listeningyesterday and I was one of them was that in Mr English’s speech—[Interruption] I will get to that Mr Seymour. In Mr English’s speech in the House he spoke of how providing an annual contribution of $521 per year and a kick-start of $1000 for new members would—and I quote for the members opposite—“provide a strong reason to join KiwiSaver.” “Yes fair enough” I said “I couldn’t agree more.” But then in his very next breath the Minister makes the statement: “Removing the kick-start payment … [will have] little or no effect on the number of people expected to join the scheme.” Which statement does the Minister stand by? Which one is true? They completely contradict one another. Let me tell you he should stand by the first statement because the second is patently wrong.As a lecturer in economics I would like to take the opportunity just to point out a few facts that Mr Seymour may have missed when he used the Coase theorem to debate in the House earlier tonight. Coase said himself that actually it was not really his theory at all. But more apt for this night’s discussion was that he said that his theory—like the ACT Party itself—actually bears no resemblance to reality and cannot be used in reality and that it is an economic theory that cannot be used in that way. What I would tell my students more specifically is that if we undertake an action we must consider its consequences. What consequences is this party hoping to achieve when it looks to remove the kick-start contribution from the KiwiSaver savings scheme of everyday New Zealanders? What is it that it is hoping to achieve? What it is doing is robbing from the next generation. Why are we robbing from the next generation? What is the justification? As far as I can see probably the only justifiable reason in their minds is to try to reach that mythical surplus which like Groundhog Day never changesyear after year. Promises are made and promises are broken.The Minister actually spoke so eloquently in his speech about spending wisely in order to generate significant long-term savings in the future and I will quote him: “Its social investment approach”—Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was reluctant to raise this point of order but I am having trouble hearing the speaker. We are not having contributions to the debate from members opposite but what we are having is a raucous racket that is only bringing this House into disrepute.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is very well made. The members on my right should tone it down a bit. Carry on.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I was quoting from the Minister: “Its social investment approach which is about targeted evidence-based investment to secure better long-term results for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. We’re willing to pay a bit more up front” he said “to get real sustainable change and in doing so we can generate significant long-term savings for the Crown.” It is pretty infallible logic but it is not being applied in this case. Why is that logic good in one circumstance but not good in this?For decades New Zealand First and those with common sense have been talking about the benefits to the individual and to the country of saving. Why? Because as was debated in the House just several weeks back we were told by this very Government how wonderful the Cullen fund was for example and how the asset of this Government was growing and circling that wonderful $30 billion mark. That kind of growth and those kinds of sums—well ahead of projections actually—are what a small country like this needs to help our people. This provides a financial stability and a confidence as we move forward with proportionately more New Zealanders moving into retirement. That large sum of money is working for the people of New Zealand. The KiwiSaver funds that are invested create so much wealth within New Zealand. The Minister is simply—as has been said so often tonight—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well actually so he thinks. It is not as simple as that. Although a few balance sheets today may be changed around what he is doing is robbing from future generations to attain this mythical Budget surplus and he is removing a huge huge driver in the New Zealand economy.The point I make to this House today is that this is a disincentive. It is plain and simple. It was noted earlier that the Prime Minister himself at the inception of this wonderful scheme said there were not enough incentives in the programme and that New Zealanders needed more to get involved. New Zealand First argues that the Government is giving away too much. National will argue that it costs too much. The Government said that it has spent $2.5 billion on this scheme since its inception and that removing this initial lump-sum contribution will save approximately $120 million a year. That is over only the next 4 years actually. As the fund reaches a critical mass in terms of the people subscribing contributions will decline fairly rapidly over time. So these minuscule savings are in the now and actually do not go on for much longer. We are robbing billions of dollars in supplementary retirement income from our next generation. This small cut has a giant multiplier effect which has not been taken into account; and if it has it has been ignored. New Zealand First cannot support such short-sighted change that saves next to nothing today but costs so very much for our future generations tomorrow. It is an incalculable potential that the growing pool of wealth could have contributed to the New Zealand economy as investors sought to grow their returns. New Zealand First does not support this bill.