Prasad Rajen: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18982] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 2 of this Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill. Part 2 is really about KiwiSaver and Working for Families—two of the most successful programmes around. They are two programmes where the majority of New Zealanders actually believe that whoever designed them—and of course it was the last Government—actually did a good job. KiwiSaver has proved itself by the number of people taking it up. This was a huge surprise when it was first introduced. The belief was that few would take it up but many many have. It was a very highly successful programme. Working for Families is the other one. This is really a subsidy for workers provided by the State because we have a low-wage economy. It is another successful programme. So here we have two successful programmes and this bill is cutting them. This Government is a cut-and-hope Government. This is a cut-and-hope Budget. There is plenty of evidence. The papers are full of it today and there is something about this part of the bill that demonstrates this Government’s real hate—if you like; it is probably not too strong a word—for those successful programmes developed and put in place by the last Government. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Which ones? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The two I have just mentioned I say to Mr Lotu-Iiga. KiwiSaver and Working for Families are the most successful programmes. That member talks about the companies in Maungakiekie that are doing very well. I tell that member that those companies were there before. Those companies are doing very well under policies of the last 9 years of Labour not ones that have been developed since that member took on responsibility for that particular electorate. It is all very well to say what the member is saying but it is not consistent with what has happened. They were policies of the last Government. 
This National Government is cutting very very successful programmes and the irony is this: National Governments of any hue have always destroyed good programmes. In 1972 there was the very successful national superannuation programme. Who cut that programme? Do members remember who cut that programme? A National Government came in and destroyed it overnight. There was the Cullen fund designed to put national superannuation in place. After the Cullen fund started what did the National Government do with it? Who played around with the Cullen fund? It was that particular Government; because the policy was successful the National Government’s stock contribution was to play around with it. Again now KiwiSaver is a successful programme for savings for this country. Members on that side of the Chamber say they support savings but they do everything to confound that and to cut back savings. And here we are again. 
Then there is the little thing about keeping one’s word. The Prime Minister gave his word that this would not be cut and that this would not happen and with this bill the Government is doing that. The Government has broken its promises at every step of the way. Why would anybody want to trust whatever it is that that Government brings out as policies? All it does is cut the successful programmes and promise something else. It is a matter of trust. When KiwiSaver is being changed in Part 2 it is a betrayal of trust given by the electorate at the last election. There is no way that members opposite cannot resile from that. It is a betrayal of trust. 
National members now say that it is not a breach of trust at all because the cuts will not come in for some time yet. Why are we debating this bill now? We are debating a cut to KiwiSaver and members on the other side said they would not do it. Therefore it is a breach of trust. Let us not play with words here. Let us not make things up. We are discussing it now. It is the Government’s intention to do it. Where are the ethics in this? Where are the ethics of keeping one’s word? National members said they would not do something then they come here change it and pretend they are not changing it. It continues in this Budget as well which this part of the bill is trying to put into place. It is really about making it up. There is a huge dispute about the figures that this bill is predicated on.