O'Connor Damien: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18963] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this debate. Part 2 deals with KiwiSaver and savings. I point to the regulatory impact statement where I believe a mistake has been made. It states: “The Government has signalled its desire to focus Budget 2011 on measures which will boost national savings …”. No it should read: “measures which should boost saving National.” because that is what the Budget is about. 
National claims that this is a savings Budget. I ask what savings are being made. First will this Budget save opportunities for adults who lost the opportunity to upskill retrain and get jobs? In the 2009 Budget the Government slashed adult and community education and in this Budget it has chopped the opportunity for people aged over 55 to get a student loan. Has the Government saved opportunities for older people in retraining? I say no. Has the Government saved opportunities for middle-income New Zealanders to save with security? I say no again. What it has done like Rob Muldoon is destroy the confidence of middle New Zealanders in the need to save for their retirement—absolutely destroyed it. No it has not saved the opportunity for those people. Has this Budget saved the opportunity for young families to get affordable early childhood education? No there are no savings there. 
So where has National made savings? Well the regulatory impact statement is incorrect—this is a “saving National Budget”. I asked where the Government saved. Does this Budget save the $1000 a week tax cut that John Key got? It did yes so maybe that is the saving that National refers to. Did it save access to BMWs with heated seats? Yes it did. This is the “savings Budget” that we are hearing about. Finally is this “savings Budget” about whether we can save NZX and the stock market? Well I say that the answer is yes because that is about all it does. The sell off or the mixed-ownership—or the mixed-up ownership—model that the Government proposes for State-owned enterprises is just outrageous. It is about savings; it is about saving the New Zealand Stock Exchange which has been a poor performer. It is about saving opportunities for the people who got tax cuts in the first National Budget. It is about saving opportunities for them to invest and to make nice healthy profits through the buy-up of State-owned enterprises. Those are the only savings we are dealing with in this Budget. 
Part 2 changes KiwiSaver and undermines people’s security into the future unless those people had a big tax cut in 2009. The people who got that saving will now have the opportunity to invest in blue-chip Kiwi investments that will deliver them a healthy dividend while the rest of the owners—the present owners those on lower incomes—will lose ownership to those people. That is an outrage. I say it is immoral. This Budget should be totally rejected. Part 2 is a classic case of injustice and savings for National not the national savings that this country could enjoy. It is an outrage and we should all vote down this bill. 
I will do my very best to ensure that the savings we are trying to achieve which Labour advocates for are for the people who need them not for the people who do not. This Budget is about saving National it is not about saving the nation. That is a huge difference. As people go through the figures—try as the Government might to hide them in these lengthy documents—and as we investigate this Budget more and more New Zealanders will work out that the regulatory impact statement is worded incorrectly and should read that the Government is determined to have a Budget that will save National.