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:3842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):This is a clause that refers to the principal Act and to amending the principal Act. I have a very short story that I wish to share with the Committee which illustrates the benefit of not amending this Act but instead of attaching the legislation to another Act. It is a story that some will know and that some will not know. It is the story of Nasrudin.Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king he was asked by the royal presence: “Is there any reason at all why I shouldn’t have your head off right now?”. To which he replied: “Oh king live for ever. I know that I the mullah Nasrudin am the greatest teacher in your kingdom and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favourite horse to sing given a year to work on it.” The king was amused and said: “Very well then you move into the stable immediately and if the horse isn’t singing a year from now we’ll think of something interesting to do with you.” The story concludes that as he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags his cellmate remonstrated: “Now that was a very stupid promise. You know that you can’t teach that horse to sing no matter how long you try.” Nasrudin responded: “Not at all. I have a year now that I didn’t have before and a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die. And who knows maybe the horse will sing.” That is a story—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! We have had 2 minutes of something that is completely unrelated to the bill. I will ask the member to focus on the clause before the Committee in future debates. This is clause 3. It is a very narrow debate this part on clause 3 so I now ask the member to continue on clause 3.Dr DAVID CLARK: Point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I have ruled. I am waiting for you to continue.Dr DAVID CLARK: I will continue to speak to the principal Act amendment by saying that the story that I have just told illustrates clearly the benefit of not amending this principal Act and of amending another Act.For example the estimates—what if we amended the estimates? That debate is still to be had. We have not had that debate yet. There are plenty of other debates that will be had this year in the House. If this legislation was amending those Acts if the legislation was jiggered around so that it could fit into another Act it would wait to be passed and we would not be passing it under urgency today without input from the public and without the opportunity to speak about why this deprives New Zealanders—half a million New Zealanders the Government tells us—of the opportunity to get the $1000 kick-start payment. That is why it is important to wait. Many things could happen if we amended this legislation in another way and allowed an opportunity for the public to comment. The Government might be persuaded. It might hear the logic that has been espoused in this House. No doubt there will be more that the public can add. That is why we have the select committee process. In the short time we have had we have already heard from some stakeholders who have launched press releases to the public—for example the Financial Services Council has said that this legislation is like robbing the kids’ piggy banks and heading down to the pub for one more beer.Many members of the public will have their own wisdom to bring to the table. They may bring their own version of the story of Nasrudin. What we do know is that when we have measured processes through this House we get valuable input from the public. So by changing the principal Act that is to be amended to a different Act that is to be debated in this parliamentary Chamber later we provide more opportunity for people to engage with the debate and for this crazy change to be pushed out to another time. Who knows—the Prime Minister may step aside. We know that he is increasingly out of touch with New Zealanders and there are movements within his own Cabinet. So many many things can happen and that is why if we do not amend this principal Act in this way but choose to attach it to another Act additional time will benefit us all.Firstly let us examine what would happen if we did not amend this Act—if we actually left this entire clause out. What would happen if we left this entire clause out? That is an interesting question. What happens if you leave the entire clause out of the bill is that the legislation does not make sense any more. On this side of the Committee we would argue that it never made sense anyway but that is a debating point. We do not particularly like what is being rammed through here under urgency. But actually if you did not amend the principal Act the KiwiSaver Act 2006—an Act that was designed to increase savings and an Act that we have been told in the debate has increased savings by an estimated 36 percent according the Inland Revenue Department’s own research on the effect of the KiwiSaver Act 2006 which is referred to in this clause—we would continue we imagine to attract savers at a rate of additionality that is similar to the 36 percent reported by the Inland Revenue Department in its extensive review of the effects of this particular legislation.It said that its estimate was about 36 percent in 2010 and that that had not changed significantly in 2013. So what it is saying there is that this Act increases savings for New Zealanders. It actually changes the savings culture. If you did not put this clause in here—if this clause was not in here and this Act was not amended—then that 36 percent would not be lost and New Zealanders would continue to save at a rate superior to the rate that they were saving before the KiwiSaver Act 2006 was introduced. That is why I think it is important that we just leave this clause out. I would be in favour of that. I would be interested to see what the Government members say—whether they think that this clause should be left out or not. I am sure that Dr Nick Smith the Minister in the chair will have a view on that—he has a view on most things—unless he is so ashamed of this legislation that he does not wish to speak to this particular clause.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Like the member. I’m confounded that the member hasn’t been on one of those quiz shows. He knows so much about everything.Dr DAVID CLARK: That is very flattering Mr Brownlee—very flattering Mr Brownlee. I would enjoy being on a quiz show with Mr Brownlee because I do find Mr Brownlee entertaining at least. Although Mr Brownlee may not bring much substance to this particular debate he is an entertaining member of the House and so I would welcome the opportunity to be on a quiz show with him. I do not know—perhaps he can suggest some shows. He is quick on his feet. We should have a debate about what show that might be.I will return to the matter at hand although I look forward to Mr Brownlee’s contribution shortly because I expect he will want to defend this clause.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I have spoken and you should consider it the last word.Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Brownlee says that his speech should be considered the last word. If that is not a sign of a Government that is out of touch and that has lost touch with the people of New Zealand then I do not think anything is. That is the kind of wisdom that Mr Brownlee brings to this Chamber—his word is the last word he is the Leader of the House. That is the reason that this legislation is going through under urgency because he says his word is the last word New Zealanders be damned. Anyone who objects to this should not have the opportunity to participate in the parliamentary debate. That is the kind of Government that we have opposite. That is the kind of Government we are staring down today as we protest against the changes that are proposed in this bill which over the next 4 years will rob half a million New Zealanders of that $1000 that every single National MP has taken advantage of. Not one of them will stand up and say that they have not taken advantage of it. That is what we are facing here in this Committee. I think that is very very much a lesson to those at home.Mr Smith is putting up his hand to speak. I look forward to his contribution after this because he is a man who might set that record straight. He might say that many National MPs have not taken up that $1000. He might say that he has not lined up his own family to take advantage of it. Who knows? We will see. We have certainly heard from one member of this House who has confessed that he and his family have taken it up and now they are cutting it off for everyone else.This is a Government that is out of ideas. It has failed to produce a surplus. And here we have—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back.Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes coming back to the point Mr Chair and you are quite rightly bringing me back to the point of the matter. I was feeling quite passionate.If we left out clause 3 the bill would not amend the KiwiSaver Act and New Zealanders would continue to save at that additional rate that the Inland Revenue Department recommends of 36 percent and the savings of New Zealand would continue to be superior to what they were before the Act was introduced. That is why I think clause 3 should be left out of this bill. I do think that would make a difference for New Zealand in the longer term. It would encourage the savings culture that this Labour KiwiSaver Act brought into place. It would be a disappointment to the Government of course because it is more concerned with its sham surplus which it cannot achieve anyway and filling the billion-dollar black hole in its Budget which its economic mismanagement has opened up over the last year.