Dalziel Lianne: Budget Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9660] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 It is a bit rich for a member of the National Party to stand in this House and speak as Chester Borrows did when it was a National Government that introduced the competitive market model for funding for community agencies whereby community agencies were pitted against each other for funding contracts; when it was a National Government that actually removed the line item for Women’s Refuge from the Budget. It is a bit rich to have to listen to that nonsense. 
But in this debate I want to talk as Minister of Commerce as Minister of Women’s Affairs and as Minister for Small Business and to bring some perspective to the debate on the savings culture that this Budget is designed to encourage and that relates to all three of my roles. I find it very disappointing to listen to women in this House who do not understand how fundamental it is that we preserve New Zealand superannuation into the future. 
I want to begin with a memory from my youth by going back to when I was 15 years old and had to ask my parents to explain the purpose of the National Party’s political campaign that had cartoon characters of Cossacks dancing across the television screen. The cartoon pictures of the Pacific Islands people who had overstayed and who were indistinguishable from those who were here legitimately was a clear-cut message that even a 15-year-old could understand. The racism was blatant. But the dancing Cossacks required an explanation. I did not understand what that was all about. I was told it related to the Labour Government’s superannuation fund which was going to build up over many many years but which was going to be under the control of the Government—a Stalinist Russia Government—which was something to be avoided at all costs. The alternative we were promised by one Rob Muldoon would be much much better; it was to drop the age of entitlement to 60 and lift the rate to 80 percent of the average wage and it could be funded out of current taxes with no need for anyone to save a cent. There was no need even for a top-up at that rate. It was an act of economic vandalism that we have paid the price for over and over again in this country. 
Michael Cullen will go down in history as the Minister responsible for turning the tide. Not only has he secured New Zealand superannuation through restoring the floor below which superannuation cannot fall not only has he partially pre-funded the scheme so that the thresholds do not have to be altered and not only has he made the scheme directly available to the public sector but also he has introduced KiwiSaver which will enable current and future generations of New Zealanders to put aside enough savings to provide a top-up to their superannuation entitlement ensuring that they can better match their pre-retirement and post-retirement incomes. Thank goodness for that thank goodness for a Labour-led Government and thank goodness for Michael Cullen who has had the gumption to actually get behind New Zealand and ensure that we have a future. 
But I do have a concern and it is this: I do not trust the National Party to continue with its stated commitment to New Zealand superannuation. That is because National cut the level of superannuation when it was last in Government. It lowered the floor below which superannuation could not fall and it was a Labour-led Government that had to restore it when it was re-elected in 1999. As Minister of Women’s Affairs I feel passionately about this issue. The reality we need to face as a nation is that only one in 20 women currently save for their retirement and 55 percent of women as opposed to 38 percent of men who are currently in retirement are totally dependent on New Zealand superannuation. 
KiwiSaver cannot change the current situation for those already in retirement but it can change the future of retirement in New Zealand. But it can never—never—be allowed to be a substitute for New Zealand superannuation. Women on average earn less than men. They spend more time than men out of the paid workforce and due to their longer life expectancy they have to stretch their retirement earnings over a longer period of time than men. New Zealand superannuation must remain as the cornerstone of our retirement income policies as a nation and only a Labour-led Government can guarantee that to the people of New Zealand. 
I want to talk about small business in respect of KiwiSaver. There has been some comment from the other side of the House about the cost this will impose on small business. Those who join the scheme will get 4 percent over 4 years and there will be a tax credit for the employer. That means the reality is that the contribution does not reach even 4 percent. Leading up to the Budget I talked to many employer groups about KiwiSaver. Almost without exception they asked why the scheme was not going to be compulsory. We have made it compulsory not for employees but for employers in terms of the contributions they make and those are not at 9 percent but rather at a mere 4 percent over 4 years—1 percent a year. So why did I mention the 9 percent contribution? Because that was the figure that came up at all of the business meetings I had in the lead-up to the Budget. People mention 9 percent because that is the figure in Australia. The reason businesses kept raising Australia with me time and time again is that Australia is awash with money. Australia’s compulsory superannuation fund has made it one of the world’s largest investors. That is a reality New Zealand businesses want to experience here. They need that investment money to come into their own businesses and not to be bought up by Australian superannuation funds. 
Finally I want to comment on the crocodile tears I have seen flowing from the eyes of the National Party members who have spoken of promoting the interests of low-paid workers. What a joke! I was here in Parliament when the National Government introduced the Employment Contracts Act. That was after it had repealed the Employment Equity Act. By just how much did wages go down in the 9 years of the Employment Contracts Act? Was it by 1 percent 2 percent 3 percent or 4 percent—because that is what we are asking employers to contribute to KiwiSaver? It was well over that and the National Party knows that is the case. Not only did we see the base rate workers’ wages go down we also saw all the conditions of employment they lost. This Government has had to restore things like time and a half for working on statutory holidays. We have introduced 4 weeks’ annual leave because workers’ rights were not able to be progressed under a National Government. It was a steady retreat year in and year out as workers had to give up more conditions of employment. Increases to the minimum wage were a rarity in the 1990s not the annual event they are under this Government. 
National voted against the Working for Families tax credits because they are targeted to working families. National wants the people who need it the least to get the most and the people who need it the most to get the least. A working couple running a business earning $60000 a year with two children get $100 a week tax credit under Labour. It would be nowhere near that under a blanket tax cut from National. National MPs cannot stand in this House with an ounce of credibility and say they care about hard-working New Zealanders—particularly those on low pay especially those who are on low pay because of National’s changes in the 1990s and those who get pay increases today as the minimum wage goes up. 
The bottom line is that National was willing to squander our future in 1975 and nothing has changed. It would be willing to squander our future once more and I pray that it never ever gets the chance again.