Fitzsimons Jeanette: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4027] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I have been listening carefully but I still have not heard anything—from the Minister of Revenue or anybody else—to explain why Part 2 of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill is necessary and justifiable. I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee which put through the KiwiSaver legislation and it had a lot of debate about the mortgage diversion facility. I was a strong supporter of this measure going into the legislation in the first place. Given that we have not heard convincing reasons this morning or last night not to let this bill go to a select committee to have some proper scrutiny and discussion it seems obvious that we should do so. There is absolutely nothing urgent about this bill. There is absolutely no reason why 31 May should see the end of this provision rather than 2 months down the track just as there is no urgency for Part 1 either. Only 600 people— 
Simon Bridges 
: We’ve got a lot of bills coming up. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Well it is a very active Government. The Government had a lot of bills coming up before Christmas. It put those bills through under urgency then it found that they were wrong. We have now used a lot of Parliament’s time repealing those bills with this legislation. Maybe a bit less haste and more speed would be a good idea. 
The argument seems to be that only 600 people are using mortgage diversion at the moment. That may well be because mortgage rates have dropped over the last year but the worst of the economic recession has not yet hit people. I foresee a time when cancelling this provision would lead to more people losing their homes because they cannot afford mortgage payments. Let us imagine a situation whereby one partner in a couple loses his or her job and the other partner is still working and paying into KiwiSaver. They desperately need that money to keep up their mortgage payments and that is where mortgage diversion can stop people from losing their homes. Maybe there is an argument against that. Maybe I have got something wrong but how would we know when we are debating a bill that came into the House just as the first reading started and there has been no proper explanation and no proper scrutiny? That is why the bill needs to be thrashed out properly in a select committee. 
The question of housing affordability is a crucial one as more and more families suffer from the recession. That is why the Green New Deal package that the Greens have been proposing builds 6000 more State houses over the next 3 years—2000 a year—for families who cannot afford mortgages and cannot even afford private rentals. The housing market generally will be eased if we have more homes—if we have more houses. Government members seem to be extremely exercised and loud about this issue because they know that they are wrong; they know that it is not a sensible thing to do. 
The Greens support Part 1. We will support the bill overall but we strongly urge the Government to rethink Part 2. Part 2 is not necessary it is not urgent and it could leave a number of families in serious strife when the recession bites further. Treasury tells us that unemployment will be 8 percent next year. That is a huge number of extra families in serious strife. There will be a lot of stress and hardship in our society. We need provisions like the mortgage diversion facility to help ease people through. After all if it is OK for the Government to stop contributing for a while to the Superannuation Fund because it would have to borrow to do so—and we support that pause at this stage; we do not think it is sensible to borrow to do so—why does it not pay for ordinary individuals to stop their saving for a while in order to keep their homes and pay their mortgages? I strongly urge everybody to vote against Part 2.