Jones Shane: KiwiSaver Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Shane: KiwiSaver Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4999] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. At some point in the future when there is great efflorescence the KiwiSaver scheme and the speeches we give this afternoon will be reviewed. Unlike the previous speech from John Key the speeches made by the Minister of Finance and the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be regarded as very temperate accounts and very thoughtful statements as to what went into this scheme and why this legislation the KiwiSaver Bill is well and truly overdue. 
Before I embark any further I take this opportunity to repeat what I said earlier—that is to pay a vote of thanks to officials from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development and the formidable team from the Inland Revenue Department for the work they provided to the select committee. They answered all manner of questions from both sides of our committee because we were dealing not only with an area where policy has been very scarce but where there are also a host of technical possibly elegant solutions on an evolving basis. So I say kia kaha and thank you to those officials. 
Underlying this bill is a question to which I certainly believe the answer is self-evident—that is the fall in household savings. Various ideologists came before the select committee. I am not sure whether a number of them improved upon what the National members asked but they were clearly of the view that household savings had not fallen. I presume they arrived at that conclusion by identifying the fact that many New Zealanders have their wealth—such as it is—tied up in houses. House prices have risen so in a stock sense there has been a growth in wealth dimensions. However we on the Government side of the House believe that household savings have faltered and that this legislation in terms of securing more reassurance for retirees represents a very sensible step forward. 
 What are we actually doing? We are providing a scheme that has the additional benefit of a modest tax incentive but it will also modify behaviour in a positive way. That is the first thing. Secondly it does not represent additional compliance problems. It is a savings scheme that enables people at the point at which they sign on to a job to begin to save. But it is not a compulsory scheme; it gives them an option of opting-out. 
The extent to which employees can challenge their own inertia is really not for this House to determine—political inertia on the other side of the House notwithstanding. It is an option that lies before the individual saver. Not only do employees have that option but they will also receive the $1000. In addition to overcome the flagging homeownership statistics that Mr Key has just referred to there is an additional $5000 available. So in that sense it is a very generous start. But like all of these things as we no doubt go forward and celebrate a fourth fifth and possibly sixth term the scheme will be capable of being refined and improved as we learn about how people actually behave under the new scheme. 
I want to repeat what the Minister said in this very temperate fashion. First this represents a culmination; a variety of measures have been introduced and the Government has been driven to do something that the community up and down Aotearoa are looking for—that is added security in retirement—and to ensure that New Zealanders are able to create a buffer in regard to our State pension scheme. Not only did we change and improve the “super” rate that our oldies are receiving but earlier in the course of this Government we created the Cullen fund. When we add those three things together it is hard to imagine what another Government could have or has done for a long period of time. This was an area that has remained as an outstanding issue. 
We did not really hear and I have not heard from Mr Key or anyone else what National would do as an alternative other than slash taxes indiscriminately and leave the vast majority of New Zealanders in “Strugglers’ Gully” possibly eking out an existence on a pension scheme which many of them are already telling us they believe they will need more of in the future. So this scheme will do that. In respect of what it does in relation to the foundation of the economy we really do believe that it will deepen and enhance the pool of available savings. 
We have heard chapter and verse about how the Aussies have sprinted ahead because they have easier access to funding. Indeed we had in another context Jenny Morel speak to us about how much easier it will be to mobilise capital to find investors for venture capitalists to operate etc. Before she was rudely interrupted by someone from the other side of the House I am sure she was on the verge of referring to the funds that will flow as a consequence of the KiwiSaver initiative because what it is really doing is attempting to generate a change in the long-term behaviour of savers. 
All long-term journeys need to start on a sure footing. Savers have been promised a great deal by the National Opposition but—unfortunately for National—they just need to look at the 1990s the 1980s and the 1970s and they are now breathing an inordinately high sigh of relief. I am sure that savers will be acclaiming the KiwiSaver scheme well into the future once it kicks in. 
The point has been made as to whether submitters had an opportunity to test their ideas fully and to engage with us. I can assure the House that a whole variety of submitters came before the select committee. A host of them had contacted the committee because they felt that their particular points were not being addressed and every time members of the Opposition sought reassurance from the chair that individuals would have an opportunity to have their particular issue if it warranted additional attention teased through with the officials never were they declined. 
In relation to mortgage division the commentary on the bill actually stated that time was passing by and that the technical challenge represented by introducing such a scheme in the very narrow window of opportunity the legislation stayed with our committee was such that we could not deal with it then but that it did deserve further attention. Somewhere in the governmental ether a fantastic initiative has emerged and of course this will have the twin effect of not only growing the available pool of savings but also improving upon the flagging homeownership rate. 
In addition to homeownership we have made a point with the passage of this bill in terms of improving financial literacy and providing information to those who may be somewhat confused as to which direction they should go. Employers I have no doubt in my mind will respond positively once they have schemes become part of schemes or are capable of identifying schemes for their workers that are compliant and those employers will receive the benefit of the recent tax change. 
I am very disappointed that we hear time and time again a parched and barren view about the attitudes of employers. The employers I talk to think that any scheme that grows the available level of savings that can continue to deepen and expand the productive sector of the economy is an idea whose time has come. Anyone arguing against that is scoring cheap political points when deep down they know that as a consequence of us embedding this scheme it is here for a long time to come and great efflorescence will surround it in the future. Kia ora tatou.