Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I should correct an impression that you gave—that this is a hard-working Government that would work through to midnight. In fact Government members were so lazy that they actually lifted the Committee at 10 o’clock— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Apologies and you know very well that we were not in urgency and that we finished at 10 o’clock as per normal and as per the rules of the House. No game-playing. On you go. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We are debating as is quite plain not just the purpose provision but also this Supplementary Order Paper. I know that the Government thinks it has done a good thing for workers but in fact it totally misunderstands the situation. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has been in continuous conflict with the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc.—not that it is a surprising situation for this particular Minister to be in continuous conflict with whomever he is talking to—and Government members have always misunderstood the point that the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) was making. It is surely an issue of choice whether someone joins the KiwiSaver programme and the whole point of the Employers and Manufacturers Association’s concern was that it is the total remuneration that ought to be looked at. People should be able to say: “Well I’m going to be in KiwiSaver and I will get my remuneration through that.” or “I’m not in KiwiSaver and I don’t want to be disadvantaged against those people who are in KiwiSaver.” So in that instance some people will simply want to have the cash in hand. That is particularly true of lower-paid workers.  
Certainly there are a significant number of workers in KiwiSaver—I understand that—but I would suggest to members that the ratio of lower-income workers is not nearly as high as middle-income workers. The truth is that if one has more money it is usually easier to save and those are the groups that are choosing to join KiwiSaver. Actually I might add that the 700000 includes a very large number of children who were joined up by their parents who are there to get the $1000 without having to make any further contributions. Often the Government tries to pretend that that figure of 700000 represents people who are in the workforce. Well that is actually not the case anyway—many of them are children. 
I suggest to the member who spoke before Sue Moroney that in fact lower-paid people are not joining KiwiSaver at nearly the same frequency as middle and higher income earners. So that is why the Employers and Manufacturers Association’s view on KiwiSaver is the correct view because it is all about people making choices. For lower-income people that is a particularly important choice they need to be able to make for many of them actually need the cash in their pockets—not put into a savings scheme. Paying the petrol bills paying the food bills and paying the interest or rent is rather more significant than saving for the future. Indeed many of those people will simply see New Zealand superannuation supported by the superannuation scheme as probably their protection.  
I want also to correct another misapprehension that the Government is labouring under. Sue Moroney explicitly said she did not expect National to support this bill at its third reading. I want to make it very clear to the Government and more important to New Zealanders that we are supporting the bill its at third reading—that is not news. Whilst we are opposed to the insertion of the Supplementary Order Paper put in this way we do not see that as such a large issue that would then cancel our vote altogether for the broader principle around fairness in the workplace in relation to meal breaks and mothers who wish to breastfeed at work. We do understand the importance of those claims and therefore wish to support the bill. That is indeed why the bill has gone through the parliamentary process relatively quickly. It was introduced only earlier this year and it is now going right through into law at this point in time. And that does actually represent a level of consensus. I know it pains the Government to find out that we are supporting it. I guess the Government would prefer us to vote against it but in fact we are supporting it.