Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4019] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As one of the original signatories to the default providers on the KiwiSaver scheme along with my former colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and as co-signatory to thousands of Cabinet papers that came through our offices along with the then Minister of Revenue—who is also the current Minister of Revenue—and Dr Michael Cullen we went through quite a number of iterations of the KiwiSaver scheme leading up to what I believe was a significant turning point in this country’s history. I think we should all take some pride in what we have achieved with KiwiSaver and the fact that a million people are enrolled— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Over a million. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —over a million people are enrolled—is a fantastic achievement. It shows that the right decision was taken at the outset which was to try to turn round the lack of a savings culture in this country. We specifically designed KiwiSaver with the Kiwi saver in mind—that is to use the inertia that would inevitably exist from having compulsory enrolment by not having a provision for people to remain compulsorily within the scheme. It would not apply across the board. People would automatically be enrolled in the scheme and they would have to take steps to pull themselves out of the scheme which I think is a very sensible way to go. It took advantage of that good old Kiwi mentality of inertia: “I can’t be bothered to do anything about it.” Anyway it has been a fantastic success in that regard. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why aren’t you in it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The reason I am not in it is that unlike a lot of New Zealanders I exercised my right to pull out of the scheme when I was automatically enrolled in it because I am covered by the parliamentary superannuation scheme that existed at the time I became— 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh—so free! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is right; I am one of the very lucky people who belongs to that. 
Hon Members 
: Greater perks! Free chits! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: To be honest and given that the members have chipped me because somehow they think that this is a lack of faith in KiwiSaver I tell them that it is quite the contrary. I thought it was immoral to take money from the public purse for the contribution that I already have for my superannuation scheme. Actually very few MPs in this Parliament are covered by the superannuation scheme that I have the privilege to belong to. I know that Trevor is not in it either because— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Proper names. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —sorry—the Hon Trevor Mallard was out of Parliament between 1990 and 1993 when a wonderful Minister of the Crown a guy called the Rt Hon Bill Birch destroyed the very very good scheme that was in place at the time. So there you go! I was chipped by members opposite but I believe that my decision not to be in KiwiSaver merely to get the $1000 contribution was an honourable position to take. 
I was not aware that this provision covering mortgage diversion was to be repealed so my issue is about process. As I have said we went through a number of iterations before we arrived at the KiwiSaver proposal. It was interesting to listen to the Minister talk about a man—whose name is apparently not going to be mentioned in this debate—who sat on the select committee. I think it was Gordon Copeland; I will hazard a guess there. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I am suddenly feeling unwell. 
Grant Robertson 
: He dare not speak the name. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He dare not speak the name—that is right. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He was “GC” but he thought he was “JC”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well that is right; I think his direct line of communication outside this place was somewhat greater than others of us might experience. 
But leaving all that aside the point is that I was very interested to hear the Minister say that in fact the banks had responded to the introduction of this provision in what I think is quite a sensible way—by saying that it is not a mortgage diversion facility available for people’s ordinary KiwiSaver contributions; it is actually a mortgage diversion facility available for people who want to pay off their mortgage a little bit more quickly. When we think of the intention of KiwiSaver and of people improving their equity in their homes we know that that is the way most New Zealanders have saved over many generations. I think that a lot of people have taken the approach of paying off their mortgage in order to ensure their future so it is a similar process to KiwiSaver in that regard. 
Given that banks have adopted this process of not taking it off the actual contribution to people’s normal mortgage repayments I am left asking the question: why are we repealing this? It seems as though the banks have adopted a relatively sensible approach to it and if that is the case why then does it need to be repealed? As the Minister said a relatively small number of people are affected. If that is the only reason is that a good enough reason? That is why I would have preferred this part of the bill to go to a select committee. 
The debate on Part 1 was pretty cut and dried; it was black and white. But I am wondering whether the debate on Part 2 will be so cut and dried and whether this is the right thing to do. Was it the banks that came to the Government to ask it to repeal this provision or is this simply Gordon Copeland payback? Now that he has gone we can get rid of it. 
Brendon Burns 
: Divine retribution! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As that member has said it could be divine retribution. I think these are the issues that we could explore. 
I probably would have felt totally comfortable about this provision if it was a straight mortgage diversion for the ordinary mortgage payments. But the fact that the banks and the other KiwiSaver providers have not interpreted it in that way and have actually applied it in a way that I think is quite sensible makes me wonder why we should take this out. It seems to be quite a useful alternative that is available to those who want to increase their equity in their own homes rather than making a contribution to KiwiSaver at a particular time. I personally think that the legislation as it was finally drafted in that regard in relation to the very powerful advocacy of one Gordon Copeland was intended by him to be a mortgage diversion so one could pay off one’s ordinary mortgage rates. It sounds from what the Minister has said that the banks and others have responded in a way that in my way of thinking is more in keeping with the original design of the scheme than perhaps an open mortgage diversion facility would be. I am quite keen to hear a little bit more about it; I think we should tease the debate out. It has not gone to select committee and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those issues.