Dyson Ruth: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Can I say to the member who has just resumed his seat James Shaw before I talk specifically to clause 3 that I think what he asked is a really important question because it does go to the heart of why this legislation is being introduced what the Government is hoping to achieve and obviously why we are doing it under urgency. I want to address my contribution in relation to clause 3 “Principal Act amended—This Act amends the KiwiSaver Act 2006” to three points. The first point is: what was the purpose of the principal Act? What was the point of the legislation as passed in 2006? The second point is: what is the purpose of the amendment that we are debating? The third point which again gets to the question that was just raised by my colleague from the Green Party is: why are we doing this under urgency?Unlike others who have referred to the legislation itself I referred back to the Hansard of the KiwiSaver Bill debate in 2006 and I found two really interesting points that I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee. The first point refers to some comments that Michael Cullen made when he introduced the legislation. He said: “The KiwiSaver Bill represents a landmark in social and economic legislation. Saving and investing is the foundation of the future wealth of our country and of us as individuals. KiwiSaver adds a new important element in the savings landscape providing a vehicle to encourage all working New Zealanders to set aside a portion of their earnings to fund their long-term income security.” That sounds pretty good to me.Mr Cullen went on to describe how it was the third in a set of measures that the Government of the time had introduced to restore integrity and security for older New Zealanders. The first measure was to restore the level of superannuation. I heard the Minister Gerry Brownlee crowing this morning about how National had put the level of superannuation up every year for the last 7 years. Well that is good. It is the law so I would hope that that is what the Government did actually. When we were in Government we made it the law because the previous National Government had cut the level of superannuation to a point where older New Zealanders just could not exist on what their level of superannuation was.The second tenet in the principal Act was obviously establishing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund a fund that I know has not received any contribution for years under the National Government. It is another key point in our social and economic security for the future and there have been no contributions under the National Government. There have been tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Clause 3.Hon RUTH DYSON: —but nothing for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. And obviously the KiwiSaver scheme as set up by the principal legislation was the third tenet.If I go to the votes on the primary legislation the parties that voted for it were the New Zealand Labour Party New Zealand First the Green Party United Future and Progressive. They all voted for the introduction of KiwiSaver in the principal legislation which we are discussing under clause 3. The parties that voted against the establishment of a savings scheme that was so vital to our social and economic future were the New Zealand National Party—shock; is everyone shocked to hear that—the Māori Party and ACT. Well that was in 2006. Not a lot has changed since that time except the numbers unfortunately. So those were the parties that voted for and against it. This legislation in my view goes absolutely against the point of the principal Act.Other contributions earlier in this debate have asked that very question: what is the status of an amendment to an Act that actually undermines the primary purpose of the principal Act? In my view what the KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill does is to undermine the fundamental purpose of the principal Act. We call it an amendment in this debate—that is how it is described in clause 3 of the bill—but it takes away the very incentive that was at the heart of changing the savings culture in New Zealand and making it more possible for people to see the value of savings particularly people for whom saving is very hard. I am not—