Wong Pansy: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4937] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I found the speech from the New Zealand First member Doug Woolerton to be very enlightening. He is now looking at setting up a good-looking party because “look” is everything according to him—substance is a minor detail. We know that the president of New Zealand First is hunting for new leaders for that party. Doug Woolerton must be really quite miffed that he has been overlooked as a good-looking dynamic potential leader for New Zealand First. But I say to him that he has to show a lot more substance before the public can support him. 
First of all as my good colleague John Key pointed out he cannot champion the cause of the so-called struggling Kiwis without making sure that this scheme is actually friendly. I find it ridiculous that he simply voted down the Green Party’s 2 percent contribution rate which would have been an achievable rate. Second it is very telling that New Zealand First has let us know that it can now handle only two issues—two changes—at any one time. It is quite telling that a very dynamic member is limited to handling two changes. 
I want the Minister in the chair Damien O’Connor to take a call to explain something. People have just mentioned that the number of default providers might be limited to four to six. The reason is that they might not be able to make a lot of money. But in the long term if this scheme becomes compulsory it might be worthwhile. I say to my good colleague John Key that in the short term some innovative people might be able to set up a scheme that was quite beneficial. I was looking at the criteria in Part 4 and thinking about whether Taito Phillip Field MP who is very innovative in providing for his retirement might be able to fit his scheme in. After all we are told in clause 99(1)(b) that the “principal purpose is to provide retirement benefits directly or indirectly to natural persons;”. I think his scheme to have people help him build his property more cheaply would actually fit this criterion. 
The other thing is that new schemes need an independent trustee and that is very very confusing. Clause 99A states that one trustee is named as the independent trustee. But if no independent trustee is named in the application then a person named in the application can become the independent trustee. It is quite flexible so I think Mr Taito Phillip Field’s scheme might actually qualify under these Part 4 provisions. His spirit in terms of saving for retirement is actually quite innovative. I hope that Part 4 after describing at great length which scheme can qualify as a default provider actually makes sure those loopholes are not utilised. 
 The other thing that John Key and Chris Tremain mentioned is that this scheme might become compulsory in time. I think the public should note the fact that New Zealand First embraces it so warmly. Indeed in 1998 it was New Zealand First’s the Rt Hon Winston Peters who wanted New Zealanders to have compulsory savings— 
John Key 
: Affectionately known as “Spider-Man”. 
PANSY WONG 
: Yes “Spider-Man”. I actually named the latest tragedy that happened to Mr Peters as “Asian bites back” but I think “Spider-Man” sounds pretty good. In 1998 the compulsory idea of Mr Peters was voted down by what—98 percent? It was well over 80 percent of New Zealanders. I think this measure is the latest attempt to go there.