Robertson Grant: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is a pleasure and somewhat of a surprise to take a call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. But as all of the speakers who have spoken so far have indicated this is a significant bill in the sense that although it has a name that sounds innocuous if not deadly dull it does actually cover some matters of significance to New Zealanders. As my colleague Annette King has noted a bill like this effectively just allows the processof laws and regulations to carry on without having to go through specific legislation for each of them but where there are levies or consequential actions of legislation this bill allows those to be continued validated and confirmed as is noted here. But the subject matter of those is indeed significant and my colleague Annette King has mentioned a couple of those.It is quite notable around the question of tobacco and alcohol that using this mechanism is a much more sensible way of being able to manage the ongoing nature of those levies rather than as she noted the late-night Budget night activities of people desperately finding their way to sources of petrol and cigarettes for fear of what might happen. I did think the story that Annette King told about the National Party backbencher of the 1980s—Chris Hipkins: It was a Wellington member actually.GRANT ROBERTSON: A Wellington member? We are getting a little more information now about just who this person might be. But that particular member who did that perhaps epitomises that the National Party still has not quite worked out how to do its sums has not caught up with what goes on when it comes to the change in the system. Thinking that it was planning ahead but getting it wrong—that is the National Party through and through.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Sounds like David Cunliffe.GRANT ROBERTSON: Jonathan Coleman is interjecting about people being able to do their numbers. I do not think “The Maestro” from Mount Albert should be talking about getting his numbers right. Jonathan Coleman is one person who when it comes to adding up numbers should just keep quiet in my view.In addition to the Customs and Excise Act changes that Annette King has mentioned I just wanted to speak briefly on what is clause 10 of the bill which proposes some changes around the New Zealand superannuation and retirement income rates. This is an area where we have finally seen some action from the National Party albeit action that is virtually automated on this matter but certainly ongoing attention to the question of the sustainability of our superannuation has been severely lacking. John Key has continually said that it is not his responsibility to try to deal with these matters because nothing will occur in terms of the lack of sustainability of the scheme for 10 15 or 20 years. Although an automated increase as is contained in this bill might be useful what would be really useful from this Government is if it took seriously the challenge of the sustainability of superannuation in New Zealand if it actually decided that it was worth thinking about something beyond a 3-year electoral cycle and if it looked at what we need to do as a country to ensure that New Zealanders are looked after in their retirement. So simply rolling over provisions extending out the rates and benefits within an Act might be one thing. What we would like to see is this Government taking seriously the challenge of providing superannuation into the future for the range of New Zealanders.We all know in this House that the cost of superannuation will soon exceed the education budget and we actually need to be taking seriously how we as a country looking forward to the next generations and the retirement of the baby boomers will have sustainable superannuation. Putting the head in the sand as the National Government is doing—the “ostrich economics” approach—is simply not good enough. We need a Government that is prepared to plan for the future to plan for 20 years out because that is the responsibility we as parliamentarians are charged with—not just dealing with what is in front of us today but ensuring that tomorrow and in the future we have a sustainable superannuation scheme that can allow New Zealanders to live with dignity in retirement. At the moment the Government has its head stuck in the sand. Theonly thing it is prepared to do is what is virtually automatic which is to increase these rates.There are many other matters in this bill that I am sure my colleagues will refer to in their speeches. We of course support this bill because it is about the efficient running of Government but the Government needs to ensure that the substantive matters covered in this bill are dealt with in a proper way and with the kind of vigour that New Zealanders would expect from a Government that actually has an eye to the future.