Hide Rodney: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3835] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I guess the bill could be called the “Government Superannuation (And Other Things) Amendment Bill”.  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It could be called the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes it could be the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill” when we consider just how much money this fund has lost. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The scope of bills these days is quite narrow. The member would know that if he had consulted the Clerk’s Office. In the Committee stage when we are debating the title of a bill that has been to a select committee we cannot discuss matters that would be relevant perhaps to a general Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. The bill we are debating is confined solely to the issue of widows and widowers who remarry. In fact I would be out of order in moving any other amendments that went beyond that particular matter. So to get into that dual issue I am afraid is totally out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. One thing a member is allowed to do in a debate on the title is discuss whether it is appropriate. That is exactly what was being done by Mr Hide. In fact he might have been getting to the point of even moving an amendment. To say with regard to the Government Superannuation Fund that it is a gamble is perfectly reasonable. The fact that it only applies to widows probably makes the fact that it is a gamble even more shameful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This is a small bill. I would ask the member to come back to the point. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson for your advice. I am talking exactly about the title of this bill. As I pointed out the bill is the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) and we are discussing the title. I suggest the title is something of a misnomer. In the last 14 months we have discovered that this fund operated under the Act that this bill seeks to amend has lost a staggering $380 million in 14 months. What I suggest with the new title— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The investment record of the Government Superannuation Fund is simply not relevant to this debate in the slightest. Indeed the member would have difficulty in justifying a reference to this issue in a second reading debate. We are debating the title of a bill that has been to a select committee. I suggest that he will have to confine himself to debating whether the title reflects the content of the bill itself not something else that he might want to refer to. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I want to rule on this point of order. During the second reading debate Dr Cullen’s point of order on the same point was ruled in favour. I have asked the member to come to the point. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are debating the title of the bill. If the title was the “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses) Amendment Bill (No 2) there would be no problem because it would be quite clear what the bill is about. When we are debating the title we are not at liberty to go into other parts of the bill. The debate on the title is general. The debate on this title could cover anything to do with the Government Superannuation Fund because the bill specifies nothing beyond the fact that it is an amendment bill and that its principal Act is the Government Superannuation Fund Act. Although we are debating the title as distinct from the other parts I am afraid your ruling is not consistent with the Standing Orders. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I remind the Chair that we do get to debate the title. That is set down in the Standing Orders. We are doing that. The question then is whether the title is appropriate. That is precisely what I want to debate. If the Chair is going to rule out that debate then why have the debate on the title in the first place? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: More precisely is the title appropriate in relation to the content of the bill not to some other matter the member might want to discuss? This bill is solely about widows and widowers remarrying. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: If I take what Dr Cullen says it may well be that the bill is about spouses and widows. The point Mr Rodney Hide was making was that he was discussing whether the title was correct. I thought that I heard him say that he thought that instead of the bill being called the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) it should be called the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill” or words to that effect and he started to explain why he thought that should be the title. If he is right that it is a complete gamble it may well be that no widow or spouse will receive any money. In that case Parliament probably should change the name of the bill to the “Government Superannuation Gamble Amendment Bill”. Mr Cullen may not like the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund under his stewardship has lost more money than it has ever done before and no doubt wants to close it down. But this is Parliament it is a debate and we should be allowed to say those words. Provided that members direct their words to the title there has never been a Chair who has said that we cannot discuss whether a bill should be called something different. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not the point. The scope of the debate on the title is whether it adequately describes the bill. As I said before this is a narrow bill and deals with specific issues. Members should confine themselves to debating whether the title adequately describes such a narrow bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for that guidance Madam Chairperson. What I am saying in this debate is that the title does not adequately convey what the bill is about in respect of spouses who remarry. This bill is saying that those spouses will come under the Government Superannuation Fund. My point is that the title should be pointing out to spouses who remarry what a risky fund it is. The experience and this is factual is that the Government Superannuation Fund—as much as Dr Cullen does not like this fact to be pointed out in Parliament or in public or in the media—has lost $380 million in 14 months. That is why I say that the title of this bill which deals with spouses who remarry does not adequately convey what the fund is all about. Because it is a gamble.  
I make this point in all seriousness. When one sees the words “Government Superannuation Fund” one has a sense of some certitude some certainty but there is none. The fund has lost 10 percent of its value in a little over a year. That is a staggering loss. I say to the Committee that we should consider renaming the bill. I look across at Dr Lockwood Smith. We know that markets go up and markets go down. Why do we not convey that fact in the title? The bill could be called the “Government Superannuation Fund (Let’s Risk Money on Overseas Markets) Amendment Bill (No 2)”. Dr Cullen does not like that title. I would be interested to know why he does not like it. He can take a call and explain. I suggest that it would be far better for him to contribute to the debate rather than trying to take pointless points of order to close it down. I tell Mr Cullen that the point of having a Parliament is to have precisely this debate even though the Government might find it uncomfortable. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Steve Chadwick yells out about looking after widows. How can the widows be looked after when this fund loses $380 million? I ask the member how many widows would it look after. How does she feel about the widows who lost $380 million in this fund? Does she think that is not important? The Minister shakes his head. He says: “It’s only $380 million; so what?”. He is saying it is 10 percent in a year. If it was his big fund it would be $6000 million. [ 
Interruption 
] Given that Dr Cullen cannot shut Parliament down we have David Benson-Pope calling from the sidelines. He is not prepared to take a call because the ninth floor has shut him down like it has shut down John Tamihere. He flies all the way up from his electorate in Dunedin and all he does is chip— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please come back to the title of the bill? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I would love to if David Benson-Pope would pipe down and let me explain what this title should be saying. This bill is designed to help spouses who remarry. Under the old rules—and the ACT party says that is wrong—if they remarry they lose their pension. How about a bit of truth in the title of bills? [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope is allowed to whip whine and groan away in this Chamber but he is not allowed to give a proper speech.