Smith Lockwood: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Lockwood: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3888] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 We are privileged now to have the Minister of Finance who has deigned to return to the Chamber to sit in the chair on his bill. Maybe we might now get some answers now that the muzzled John Tamihere is no longer in the chair.  
Part 2 spells out the details of this bill and there are a couple of issues I would like to ask Dr Cullen about. He will note that during the work of the select committee clause 4(6)(b) was struck out. The commentary states that the committee struck it out to avoid confusion. I would like the Minister to look at that and satisfy himself that it was the right thing to do. Subclause 6(a) spells out that a person is entitled to an annuity under the provision of the principal Act but as I read clause 4(6)(b) the amount of that annuity should be as if the person had been in receipt of all the adjustments to the annuity over time. In other words if those adjustments are not taken into consideration is the Minister satisfied that the legislative provision for the amount of the annuity is secure? When the bill was originally drafted it is pretty clear that subclause 6(b) was put in there to make sure that the amount of the annuity that would be paid was clarified—not just that a provision was being made to pay an annuity but that the amount was to be at a level that included all the adjustments made since the new schemes came into being in 1985. I would be interested in the Minister taking a call to advise us whether he is satisfied that clause 4(6)(a) on its own covers that aspect. I think it is quite important. We do not want to be passing legislation that provides for an annuity but does not actually tell the recipients how much they are entitled to.  
During the earlier debate Opposition members asked a perfectly valid question about the cost of this legislation. It is important because payments under the Government Superannuation Fund are defined benefits so regardless of what happens to the fund the benefit will be paid out. It is an important protection to those who receive annuities from such a scheme. Now with the scheme having lost so much money in the last 14 months—what is it $380 million?—there is an issue about whether taxpayer funds will have to be used to enable the scheme to meet all its commitments. It is a defined-benefit scheme and commitments have to be met. If they cannot be met from the scheme directly as I understand the law they must be made up by the Crown.  
Those are the two things I would appreciate the Minister answering in respect of Part 2. The first is whether he is totally satisfied that the omission of clause 4(6)(b) does not leave any loose ends about the amount of an annuity a remarried spouse or any children might be entitled to under this bill. The second thing is whether given the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost a lot of money and is a defined-benefit scheme there are any fiscal consequences for the Crown from this legislation as we look ahead.  
Those are perfectly reasonable questions to be asking and I hope the Minister of Finance is in a better position to answer them than the Minister of Youth Affairs who had been instructed that he was not allowed to make comments on areas outside his own portfolio. I guess he was too muzzled to answer our questions and somewhat punished by being put in the chair on a bill that was not his. I am sure that if those questions could be answered there would be a fair bit of satisfaction in the Chamber that Part 2 is in reasonable shape and therefore worthy of the support of the Committee.