Shaw James: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3826. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Green):I also have a suggestion for the title of this bill which is that we amend it from the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill to the “KiwiSaver Arbitrary Budget Measures Bill”. I say “arbitrary” because there does not yet seem to be much reasoning behind the move to remove the incentive.I just wanted to thank the Minister Michael Woodhouse for his contribution earlier because it was the first contribution from a member of the Government side that actually included facts. I found that very helpful. It included actual information and actual facts. However it simply reinforced the Government’s case that this is all about cutting costs reducing the deficit and so on. I wanted to pick up on one point with that but then I also wanted to restate some of the questions that I asked earlier on in the debate and to invite Mr Woodhouse to take another call at a later stage to respond to some of the specific questions that lead me to the idea that this is in fact an arbitrary bill. First of all he mentioned the 39 percent top tax rate before. When National first came to Government it reduced taxes for the wealthiest people in society which has left a hole in the accounts of about $1 billion a year. That would have covered the deficit and it would have allowed us to continue this scheme.The questions that I asked earlier that I have not yet received an answer for are No. 1: New Zealand is 22nd of 24 OECD countries for savings. Cutting the KiwiSaver incentive reduces the savings rate. What is the plan to increase savings? The second question is: the ANZ chief economist says that removing the KiwiSaver incentive will reduce the rate of take up. What is the plan to maintain or increase the rate of take up? Three: did the Government consider leaving the kick-start contribution in place for say 6 or 12 months in order to incentivise those currently not in the scheme to get into the scheme or to give people who are currently processing paperwork a chance to actually get it completed? Four: how does reducing the KiwiSaver take-up rate impact the intergenerational equity of today’s working parents paying for three generations’ worth of costs? How does it deal with the change in the dependency ratio from 7:1 today to 2:1 in 30 years’ time?The fifth question is: the Government is reducing a short-term deficit by raiding New Zealand’s retirement schemes—again. What is the Government’s plan for long-term financial sustainability? Six: why cut the kick-start contribution rather than the member tax credit given that we know that the kick-start contribution is the incentive that people actually know about and is the thing that actually gets them into the scheme? Reducing or removing the member tax credit would actually achieve the Government’s goal more substantially because it is the more expensive part of the scheme but it would leave in place the incentive to get into the scheme which is the most important thing.As yet during the course of this debate I have not heard responses to any of those questions and that leaves me in the position of simply having to oppose this otherwise arbitrary bill.