Xu-Nan LawrenceEMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (PROTECTION FOR KIWISAVER MEMBERS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 31 July.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm happy to speak on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. This bill is quite significant because it addresses one of the loopholes that has been created. In the words of the Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson she mentioned that this particular bill—well the current state when it comes to KiwiSaver and superannuation goes against the essence of what KiwiSaver is supposed to be. I would like to thank Dr Tracey McLellan for actually bringing this bill to the House.In the broader context of this bill the reason that it was introduced is that in the review done by Te Ara Ahunga Ora - Retirement Commission 45 percent of employers used a total remuneration approach to KiwiSaver for at least some if not all of their employees. Also 21 percent of them admitted that it was because it is cheaper for the business. So in many ways that is not done in good faith and in line with what we wanted to see when it comes to KiwiSaver.This has a lot of implications both in terms of superannuation but also in terms of KiwiSaver because the essence of it is that we wanted to see our elderly when they are at retirement age being able to benefit from such a scheme not at the cost of their own salary and their own income. In a 2023 review 20 percent—we're seeing that now 20 percent—of our elderly over the age of 65 no longer own their own home. It is projected in 24 years 40 percent of them will no longer own their own home—and that is people of my age and generation. This is significant because if we have a system where we allow employers this ability to actually create a system where the KiwiSaver is built into a person's natural salary it actually means that not only will they have less to spend later on in life when they're getting ready to retire but they also have less to go on now.So when it comes to this particular scheme when we have employers using a total remuneration approach if we are looking at the current status of the minimum wage and roughly an annual income of about $48000 having 3 percent of your income being built into your KiwiSaver amounts to roughly $27 a week. If this bill is introduced and passes in the House and employers are no longer able to exploit this particular element we will see that New Zealanders who are on low to medium salary actually benefiting more than what this Government has put in in terms of their tax cuts. So if the Government is really keen on having people benefiting more and having more income after tax in people's pockets they should be able to support this particular bill.Indeed in the first reading the members from the opposite actually mentioned that they have noticed that there is an issue and this is a genuine problem and a potential problem and the National Party in particular did support this bill through the first reading. However we have seen in the second reading there is this kind of flippity-flop thing where they then suddenly come back and say that Oh this is an ideological bill and it's a bill that is seeking a problem." which completely goes against what they said in the first reading. So a question there would be: what happened between these two readings? Why then did the Government support the first reading through but not the second? This particular bill would be significant and this particular bill is going to be significant for those people who are struggling with the cost of living already. I would like to encourage as we progress this bill for the Government who claims that their tax cuts benefit low- and middle-income New Zealanders and that they are doing everything right for low- and middle-income New Zealanders to seriously consider supporting this bill through the committee stage and through the third reading because this would genuinely help those people. Thank you."