4. Superannuation—Entitlement Age Government Policy and Life ExpectancyRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterSuperannuation—Entitlement Age Government Policy and Life Expectancy4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement to The Nation Well it's turned out that because so many more people are working as they get through the age 60 65 that super is more affordable than was expected say 15 years ago. I haven't made the same undertaking as John so we have the opportunity for a bit of a reset there"?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. The reality is that because of stronger economic growth in New Zealand now over the last 7 or 8 years the projections about the cost of national superannuation show that it is a bit more affordable than it was but it is still increasing quite significantly. The fact is that if the economy had not grown as successfully as it has probably more drastic decisions would be required. That is why we would take the opportunity for a fair and reasonable transition to a higher age of eligibility.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should New Zealanders trust National's phase-in from 2037 and does he recall National's 1990 promise to raise the age to 65 over a 20-year period in annual increases of 3 months in the age of entitlement which then having won the election National switched to just 8 years after the 1990 election? Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member's the only person who was in Cabinet that day. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is exactly the point I was going to make. The person who would remember all of that is the member who was both in the Opposition and then in the new Cabinet that made those decisions. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are some people in the National Party—and you would be one of them—who would know that statement is demonstrably false. Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Does the member want to add—no. If the member feels there has been a misrepresentation then he knows what to do about it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should New Zealanders trust National when it first promised to get rid of the surtax and did not and second increased it to 92c in the dollar—a situation that only New Zealand First redeemed?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member would have a better recollection than any of us as I said. But the question the member needs to answer is: what exactly is wrong with the announcement made yesterday and what is wrong with the policy? It protects all existing superannuitants it protects those whom he labels as near retirement—and in this case it is everyone aged 45 and over—from any change in their superannuation entitlement and it changes the residency requirements in a way that I assume the member supports. So then the question is: just what is wrong with the announcement that he seems to be so vehemently opposed to?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand that what is wrong is the trust factor such as when in 1996 National promised voters to maintain New Zealand superannuation and then after breaking the coalition agreement of which that was a central factor took the figure from 65 percent of the net average weekly wage down to 60 percent—again a circumstance that the New Zealand First Party had to fix up. It is the trust factor son.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I respect the member's recollections of those arguments now over 20 years ago. He was in the National Party when those decisions were made and I respect the fact that it was one of the reasons that he ended up leaving the National Party but it does not tell us anything about his views on the actual announcement. So I take it from what he said that he has no problem with the announcement itself.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can the Prime Minister in 2017 have prime ministerial responsibility for the actions of the National Party in 1990? What is next Dick Seddon?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was certainly part of the question but it was not the essence of the question. The question was in order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is wrong is the issue of trust. Why should New Zealanders trust National when it promised not to change superannuation settings in 2008 then first promptly stopped the Government contributions to the Cullen fund and if that was not bad enough then started taxing it?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have put out a policy in election year when there will be plenty of debate and plenty of opportunity for the public to debate it. But I invite the member to consider the policy position that we have outlined because I believe it is one that he could support. Not completely maybe but he could support these aspects: it protects existing superannuitants it protects everyone over the age of 45 from any change in their entitlement it allows a very fair and reasonable 20-year transition and it changes the residency requirement for national superannuation from 10 years to 20 years. I just invite the member to consider those propositions.Marama Fox: Given the review period in 2030 should that show up a continued discrepancy and inequity in life expectancy will the Minister then consider flexibility in eligibility for superannuation?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The good news is that Māori life expectancy is increasing and is actually starting to close the gap between Māori and Pākehā; that is good. The second thing is that the review in 2030 of course will be in circumstances a bit different from the ones we have today. Who quite knows what jobs are going to be there and who is going to be doing them? But the point of it is simply to recognise what the member is referring to and that is there will be some people for whom 67 looks a bit of a stretch and well ahead of changing the age we believe the Government of the day should consider what it can do for what will be a small minority of workers.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister not understand that what is wrong is a past record of the National Government not keeping its word on the issue of superannuation like for example promising not to tinker with the SuperGold card entitlements and then fiddling with the travel privileges?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said I invite the member to consider and comment on the actual policy that has been announced. But just as importantly this Government through a period of recession and very large Government deficits said that nothing would change about national superannuation entitlements and we stuck to that despite running up one of the largest deficits that a New Zealand Government has run up in a long time. We have stood the test of fiscal pressure. Now that we have been able to rebuild surpluses that pressure is not there the same way.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should any soon-to-be or present superannuitant trust National on this matter—or for that matter why should New Zealand First trust it—when there is a record already laid out in this House of seven breaches in the past of their trust; or when we sought to raise the issue of overseas acquisition from 10 to 25 years its members said it was racist and bigoted and the self-appointed Lord Denning of this House claimed it was discriminatory and conflicted with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—he is right down over there.Hon Christopher Finlayson: The law clerk fired by Russell McVeagh.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If he had not appointed himself as—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no way the Attorney-General should be lying in this House. I am asking for an apology.Hon Members: Oh!Rt Hon Winston Peters: He is. I have taken offence to what he said.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to take it further then I suggest he looks at Standing Order 359 and proceeds from there.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at what he said and I am asking him to withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: If the member has been offended I ask the Hon Chris Finlayson to withdraw that remark.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Certainly I withdraw.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the remark may well be withdrawn the accusation of lying in the House came from the Rt Hon Winston Peters against the Attorney-General. I think that also needs to be withdrawn.Mr SPEAKER: No I think on this occasion I have dealt with the matter. The accusation of lying is to be dealt with by reference to Standing Order 359. I was then informed that the member was offended by the remark—I have asked for that to be withdrawn and it has been withdrawn. That closes the matter. We now have a question that was asked some time ago and I invite the Prime Minister to answer it.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just disagree with the member's assertions but I would propose that as he gets around the countryside talking to a lot of older audiences who will be interested in hearing from him he gives them the opportunity to make up their own minds by outlining the policy that has been announced—we are happy to brief him on that in detail—and letting them decide whether it is fair and reasonable to superannuitants to the near-retired and to younger generations. We are not necessarily going to be taking the member's view as representative of all people who are retired or near-retired.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When laid out in the House today are eight examples of the trail of the National Government's word on this matter in recent times why would anybody sane in the full capacity of their thoughts ever trust it in the next year the year after that or beyond? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course if the member is mistrusting then he knows what the National Government's policy is. We have outlined it in detail prior to an election. What he cannot know is what Labour's policy is because it does not know. How can he predict what its policy would be?Rt Hon Winston Peters: You might have a point there. I wish to table two documents. One is a screenshot of a deleted tweet not available to the House any more from Mr Bill English—staunch as he purports to be. Another one—probably not available also because it has not been read by members—is the Lord Denning statement from the Attorney-General talking about it being outside the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of all things.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that information could be of interest to members I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table those two particular documents. Is there any objection? There is none.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House."