Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4234] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am indeed glad that Mr Carter raised the superannuation issue and talked about the benefits of this Budget for Maori and non-Maori. I say to Mr Carter that for Maori and non-Maori this Budget will go down in history especially for those in their sunset years looking to retire as a big loser for them and a great lie. The day after the Budget 53 percent of New Zealanders stated in a ShapeNZ poll that they do not believe Mr Carter. They do not believe the National Government’s claim that the deferral of contributions into the Cullen superannuation fund will not result in a reduction in the entitlements for superannuation when they retire or indeed in a lifting of the age of entitlement as well. 
I say to Mr Carter that this Budget is a typical Tory Budget. If we look at the last 40 years’ history of superannuation in this country—if we back to Robert Muldoon and if we look at  
Hansard 
—we would see the same set of speeches. We would hear about how proud National members were of Sir Robert who overnight bribed people with their own money and gutted superannuation. I am sure—I know because I worked in the building in the 1990s—that there were similar speeches. 
If we advance a few years to the early 1990s we will see that Jim Bolger made the “no ifs no buts no maybes” speech. He said he would not raise the age of eligibility. There were similar speeches about the age of eligibility being raised from 60 to 65 and about how proud National members were of that pre-election commitment which turned out to be one of the great lies of New Zealand history. 
Let us move on and consider Bill English’s period a few years later in the late 1990s under the Shipley regime. The proud Budget speeches came out then as well. And who was Minister of Finance? It was Mr English and National cut superannuation three times. I think Mr Carter was in Government then. He got up and made another of those speeches about how proud he was of the leadership of National as it slashed national superannuation as it refused to inflation-proof it and as it lied to the people of New Zealand—as it did in Muldoon’s time in Bolger’s time and in English’s time and as it is now doing in John Key’s time. 
It was John Key who went to the country with a cast-iron guarantee almost signed in his own blue blood that National would not tamper with superannuation. What it has done is defer the pre-funding of the Cullen fund for 10 years based on a lie. It is based on the premise that if we have debt we should not fund superannuation. Well if that is the case as John Pagani said on  
Q 
+ 
A 
 that would rule out most New Zealanders if not all or all those with a mortgage. Under that thesis they would never provide for superannuation ever would they because they have a 20 25 or 30-year large debt called a mortgage. That is another great lie of the National Government and 53 percent of New Zealanders as I said do not believe National. They do not believe that because of the deferral the age will be held and they do not believe that their entitlements will not be cut. 
I have looked at Mr Carter’s proud speeches about courage and leadership. Courage to Mr Carter is a self-congratulatory attitude about the fact that for the first time in 40 years National has held the age of eligibility and has not altered the current entitlements in superannuation and for the first time has not slashed and burnt the current 66 percent entitlement. But what National members did do was go round to the back door and gut superannuation through the deferral— 
Paul Quinn 
: They locked it in! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That silly member over there says they locked it in. I hope the Hansard people are getting every word that genius says. He joins a long list of National folk who said one thing on superannuation before the election and then went back on their word. National members lied to people. They went back on their word and no one believes that member. 
Do members know the greatest crime in this Budget with regard to superannuation? It is the fact that there is no longer the same certainty. For a decade prior to this crew getting into Government there was certainty about superannuation. Promises about entitlements were kept. It was of course a Labour Government that reversed the triple cut that Mr Carter and Mr Williamson put through in the 1990s and it was a Labour Government that set up the Cullen fund which acted as smartly as Kiwis do when they are managing their own domestic budgets. 
What do Kiwis do if they know that there is a big expense coming up like the need for a new washing machine in the house in another 6 months? Average Kiwis smart people that they are start to put money aside because they know the expense is coming. Indeed the Cullen fund operated on the same principle given that we know the age of folk when they will retire and what the bill will be. The other great lie is that the fund will contribute only 12 percent. That is rubbish—it is more like 20 percent to 25 percent. Labour said that given the age of entitlement we knew when folk would retire and we would make provision for it. We said we would create certainty and take away the fear people have as they move towards retirement. The great sin in what the National Government has done is that there is again fear and uncertainty for every person in his or her 40s and 50s. All those people had 10 years of certainty about superannuation because the Labour Government said: “Here are the rules here’s the age here’s how much you’re going to get and we’ll guarantee it because we’ve logically made provision for it.” as Kiwis do every day in their domestic budgeting. But now fear and uncertainty have been unleashed. What do I mean by that? Well commentators every day are saying that we need a debate about the age of eligibility. They are saying we need to look at what the Australians have done in terms of lessening it. 
Hekia Parata 
: Who are those commentators? Are they National Ministers? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well some will be National Ministers of course. 
Some people will be sitting at home now and thinking “Hang on a minute! Is history going to repeat itself? In my 50s as I move towards retirement a decade away—which is simply too short a time to recalibrate—” 
Paul Quinn 
: You will still be bludging off the taxpayer. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a pity about the fool on the second row opposite. If anybody knows about bludging it is that member. The fool on the second row cares nothing about the elderly. Let him go and barrack at the Grey Power meeting in his patch—oh he does not have one! Let him go to an Age Concern meeting and sit there like a stuffed dummy and barrack at the old folk. Let him go and sit in public meetings and barrack at those people in their 50s who do not have the time to recalibrate their arrangements because he and his ilk again for the fourth time in 40 years pulled the rug out. I know what the old boys and girls at the Rangiora Grey Power would do to him and I know what the old boys and girls at the North Canterbury Age Concern would do to him: they would treat him with the disrespect that he deserves. All he can do is sit there and barrack away. 
So the great sin in this debate is that Kiwis no longer have the certainty they once had. For 10 years Kiwis knew that if they did all the right things—pay the mortgage look after the kids and ensure that their debts and their affairs are in order—the Government would look after them. For 10 years Kiwis could say: “The Government has told me what I have to do and the Government will look after me.” And we know that Kiwis are generous—we need only look at KiwiSaver. Kiwis stepped up to the plate and said they would make their contribution. They decided to contribute to their retirement. They said that as well as getting superannuation they would up put their own money. They were generous they were strong and they did that. 
Today as the debate in the media and among political parties moves along we see a headline in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
—I do not mean the interesting individual on the front page. That headline says it all: “Super at age 65? Don’t bet on it”. Now that that debate has been ignited and the consensus has been destroyed folk in their 40s and 50s are rushing around trying to work out what they have to do to enjoy their retirement for which they have worked all their working lives. 
The great betrayal is what the National Government has done. Yet members opposite sit there and want to be congratulated because for the first time in their history they decided they would not move on the age of eligibility or cut the current levels of entitlement—yet. But we know what they will do at the next election. They will go to the country and say: “Look it’s been 3 years. We haven’t put money into the Cullen fund and we are billions of dollars behind.” They will tell New Zealanders: “You have a choice. We’ll up your taxes and put the money in or we’ll have to look at changes to the age of entitlement.” But they will not say that before an election. I say to them as they barrack away like the old bellows in the second row that they should not take my word for it. They should look at the history of the National Party from Muldoon to Bolger to English to Shipley and to Key. They are condemned by their own history.