Groser Tim: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Groser Tim: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:19072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I did not expect to be asked to take a call on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill when I came down to the House tonight because I have deliberately recused myself from any involvement in this issue as I have at least two conflicts of interest. The first is that I think my now very elderly mother is a beneficiary of this legislation and second I of course am a beneficiary of the Government Superannuation Fund generally although we are not discussing the fund.  
In response to the comment made by the member opposite I say I am very pleased to see this bill proceeding. I think this issue has been a very very obvious anomaly that has affected a group of very much at-risk people in our community. Primarily they are very elderly people and primarily they are women as a consequence of simple demographic facts and their social consequences. Many of them as the Minister will be aware are people who are living in quite straitened circumstances. For them the increase and the additional sum of money although it may not sound a great deal to other New Zealanders will be deeply appreciated. In the informal discussions—precisely because of my conflict of interest on this matter—with David Swallow and David Thorp I have been made aware of an emotional issue that is involved here. The issue was not just about the money involved; it was also about the perception of those people being wronged. So tonight I am very pleased to support this bill.  
In terms of my own position on the Government Superannuation Fund scheme I say I am a beneficiary of the scheme. To be perfectly frank I am very pleased that at the age of 23 when I threw in a doctorate to join the Public Service for reasons of financial need I was not given the choice of whether I would save for my retirement. Through the vicissitudes of life—and yes I have had one or two little sideways steps on the way to getting here—it has proved to be probably the best decision I was never asked to make at a very young age. It is an age when people are not all that competent no matter what their academic training or professional expertise is to make decisions about their own financial futures 30 to 40 years hence. That has always informed my own personal views on all issues to do with superannuation and savings schemes. I will not go further than that or else we would get into some very dangerous territory.  
I think that there is very little understanding in our community generally about the Government Superannuation Fund. It is probably seen by many people—and I think absolutely inaccurately—as some kind of benefit that is being given to people who have served the public as members of the Public Service in a wide variety of fields. Those fields are as diverse as that of my father who was a radio and TV actor until he became the head of radio drama when he joined and subsequently became a beneficiary of this scheme ranging through to that of my own background. A huge number of different New Zealanders have made their contributions to the Public Service over the decades and have been contributors to this scheme.  
The key point is that the scheme is a contributory scheme but it was set up on appalling principles originally. They were the classic “fly now pay later” principles in which the contributors like my father and like myself in an earlier phase of my career made contributions to the scheme with no matching contribution from the Government whatsoever. I am very pleased that that mess was cleaned out subsequently. It required quite radical change and I think it is perfectly understandable that some technical errors were made. It is with a sense of regret that I see it has taken us as long as this to address this final step. I am a little surprised by the Minister’s estimate of the cost. I had thought that the earlier adjustment from 80 percent to 90 percent was in the order of $7.6 million but I take the Minister’s statement that the cost is rather higher than that.  
But essentially I just stand to support this bill. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. A number of elderly New Zealanders will be pleased to see that a very longstanding anomaly is finally being corrected and corrected for good. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.