Clark David: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3833. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I know that on the Government benches they were eager to hear my contribution so I shall not disappoint. I have put forward an amendment to the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill to ensure that this kick-start contribution is not withdrawn until 2018. That would allow a future Labour Government to make sure that the kick-start contribution continues as it is now.This is a Government that is determined to take from New Zealand’s future in order to pay for its mismanagement today. This is a Government with no plan. Those members opposite have got their heads down. They know that it is true. The Government is trying here to take $1000 off future generations—off half a million Kiwis in the next 4 years. That is what it is doing here with this bill. Make no mistake if you are watching this at home. It is taking $1000 off half a million Kiwis for their retirement savings because it has not managed the economy well because it has failed to get to surplus and because it is trying to make it look like it has not missed by too much. Actually the books are a billion dollars worse than they were at the last Budget. The Government is doing an appalling job of managing the economy. It has failed in good times to diversify the economy.My amendment would push out the date on which this legislation starts so that a Labour Government in the future could fix this before it actually takes effect. That is the effect of my amendment. If we look at how it stands now—and it is here in the explanatory note in the general policy statement at the front of the bill. People at home may not have this in front them but—Hon Members: Ha ha!Dr DAVID CLARK: Well they might—they might. There are some who will. But if they do not I will explain that what this bill attempts to do is enact retrospective legislation. When the Budget was announced at 2 p.m. on Thursday that was the cut-off point. If people had not signed up at that point they were not eligible to get the kick-start contribution any more. Why did the Government make that change retrospective? Why is it passing legislation now—after that time—that takes effect a few days ago? It is because it knows in its heart of hearts that this incentive works. It knows that if people really wanted to sign up to this programme just because it was so they would have done it anyway. That the incentive really matters is something that Government members try to deny but they know that if they made this change start a little later people would be rushing out there to sign up.There is also an amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins which I expect he will speak to on that front which allows for people who may be watching at home and saying “Gosh I wish I’d got that $1000.” to go out and sign up in the next few months. It is a sensible amendment. If the Government members really believed that that was not going to be the effect of this legislation if they really believed that $1000 would make no difference they would accept Chris Hipkin’s amendment and they would accept my amendment which allows for that $1000 to continue.My amendment is really targeted at the artificial surplus that the Government is creating because this is a Budget without vision. This Budget is one that fails to meet the Government’s promise of a surplus—the central promise of its last election campaign. This amendment says: “We will continue with this very good scheme until a future Labour Government can correct it.” That is why I am putting forward an amendment in clause 2 of the bill. As it currently stands it came into force as I said the moment the Budget was announced. We know that this will have an effect. We also know that the changes that the Government is proposing are going to cost taxpayers so we would obviate that cost with my amendment.The extra $210000 that the Government estimates currently that it would cost to change the Inland Revenue Department tax system in order to take this money away from future kids—$210000 to take the money away from future kids—would be avoided. Let us think about that. That is 210 kids’ starts in life—210—that are paid for just by avoiding this change. The Government spends the money frivolously on Government administration because it is scampering for the surplus. The bill was a panicked response. We know that and we have heard that in the previous debate because it is right there in the Government’s own departmental statements. It is important for the reason that it avoids costs to the Inland Revenue Department and by flow-on effect it avoids costs to the taxpayer. That $210000 can be avoided. I would think that members opposite would consider it to be important to take into account how New Zealand taxpayers’ money is spent.