Hide Rodney: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12561] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 We should say as MPs that the pension at 65 years old and of 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple is not sustainable in New Zealand. We can show that very simply by going back just about 30 years to Sir Robert Muldoon winning the election in 1975 by making an unsustainable election promise which was retirement at age 60 with a pension of 80 percent of the average wage for a married couple. That entitlement works out to be twice what the entitlement is for a retired person now. If we take that 5 years and go from 65 to 80 percent the entitlement is double what it is now. So over 30 years the pension entitlement of New Zealand citizens has been halved. Sir Robert Muldoon campaigned through the country and said for people not to worry; his promise was sustainable. Well it was not. It was not then and it is not now. A lot of heartache was caused for a lot of people. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes and we lost the election. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I hear what Jill Pettis said. She called out that they lost the election—because the National Party and Sir Robert Muldoon stole the election with an unsustainable election promise and did away with the Norm Kirk scheme. He said: “Oh don’t worry about Norm Kirk’s scheme. I will give you the benefit of 30 years’ saving now.” That was the promise and so New Zealanders believed it. 
What happened? Subsequent politicians through various political manoeuvrings had to reduce the entitlement. Why? Was it because politicians are hard-hearted and do not care about the elderly? No! Every political party cares about the elderly in New Zealand. But the problem was that since Robert Muldoon’s day—1975—the number of New Zealanders over the age of 60 has doubled. That was the problem. It was not whether MPs cared or whether political parties knew how tough it was to live in New Zealand on a pension. It was a problem of arithmetic; twice as many pensioners require twice as much money. So there was hardship social upheaval and political squabbles as we saw the pension entitlement reduced by shifting the age of retirement out and having the level of the pension itself reduced. 
Let us be honest here: not one political party covered itself in glory—not one. In the heat of election campaigns politicians made promises they could not meet and in office they changed them. The political imperative is tonight’s  
Holmes 
 show tomorrow’s debate in the House and the coming election. That is how far ahead we look as politicians. But for working people and for the elderly pension policy is about the next 30 years 50 years—our children’s entire lifetime. That is the time frame they are looking to. So working people who voted for Sir Robert—believing him—now retire to find that that promise was worthless. 
What do we have now? No one disagrees with this analysis. The number of elderly over the next 30 years is set to double again. In fact it is set to more than double—from about 470000 over the age of 65 to 1.3 million. The number of retired people is set to more than double. We can stand here today in Parliament and say: “65 percent at 65 years old” safe in the knowledge that the decision makers in the Government will not be in Parliament when that hits. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Darren Hughes thinks he might be. I ask him then to surrender his MP’s pension and survive on the pension that every other New Zealander has to look forward to. 
It is not in dispute either that if we are to keep that pension—all things being equal—the amount of income tax we will have to raise increases by 25 percent. That is every rate of tax has to go up by 25 percent. The 39c-rate must go up. The 33c-rate the 21c-rate—every rate of tax must go up. So what did Prime Minister Helen Clark do at the last election? She said: “Don’t worry. Vote for me and I’ll put it back to 65 percent and in 2 years’ time you’ll be $23 a week better off.” That is what the Prime Minister said and they asked how she was going to pay for it. She said: “Don’t worry. We’re going to have this big fund and the Government is going to tax the rich and save the money and look after you in your retirement.” Baloney! 
Jill Pettis 
: What a good idea. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Jill Pettis says that that is a good idea. It might be a good idea if that is what the Prime Minister and Michael Cullen were doing. But the amount of money they are putting away—a couple of billion dollars a year—will provide on average for only 10 percent of the cost of pensions in the future. Is that true or false I ask Ms Pettis? 
Jill Pettis 
: We have provided our answer; you provide yours. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: She will not even tell us whether a simple piece of arithmetic is true or false. I tell the member not to worry. Treasury has done the numbers and Michael Cullen has confirmed it: the pension saving scheme of this Labour Government will provide for only 10 percent of the cost of the pension in the future. Well that is funny is it not? That might be all right if the number of elderly was going to go up by only 10 percent but—whoops—it is going to go up by 120 percent. 
Darren Hughes 
: I’m going to vote for Muriel Newman. I’m donating $10 to her. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know that Darren Hughes does not think that the pension of elderly people in New Zealand is very important and is something worth joking about and that the rip-off of the working people of New Zealand is something to interject about. But I tell him that it is a cheating system. It is cheating to put aside 10 percent and say that will cover an increase in costs for a rise of 120 or 130 percent. I know that this Government does not like to discuss people’s pensions— 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh yes we do. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh well what we are going to do is—yes—support this bill going to the select committee but I want Darren Hughes and Ms Jill Pettis to front up and provide some explanations of what pensions will be for New Zealanders in 20 years’ time and in 30 years’ time. While they might laugh about it and while they might be happy to have their MP’s pensions why do they not think about ordinary New Zealanders for a change?