Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 20 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say that unlike my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau from New Zealand First I am not disturbed in the least at supporting this legislation. I enjoy the rare opportunities we have on this side of the House to support legislation that is good. In fact it is good to debate legislation that the Government has introduced given how rarely that has been occurring over the last 12 months. This is a Government that clearly is not pressed for work or pressing for work.Chris Bishop: Oh rubbish.Hon RUTH DYSON: Chris Bishop says it is really busy. He has had a very very sheltered life. You only have to listen to the start of Parliament every day when the Speaker says “Are there any bills for introduction?” and there is a long silence—a really long silence—except on the days when there has been a members’ bills ballot and then there are a few. That is good. Or there is the very rare occasion when Nick Smith introduces local bills or private bills—or today when a Minister introduced a bill. You could hear the champagne corks popping down the back as those members said: “What a rare occasion this is.” But it is good to be able to support this legislation arising from the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill.I am sorry that I am not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee any more. It sounds like it has had some really good debates. Even though this legislation is quite narrow I do think that commendation to the members of the select committee is in order. It sounds like they have considered the issues with some rigor. There are certainly some tensions in the broader spectrum of what you might be looking at in terms of the responsibility for investment—this is taxpayers’ money we are talking about—as to where the accountability should be where the liability should be what the framework of the investment rules should be and how much or how little political management or political interference there should be. Those questions are all legitimate within the frame of this legislation and it does sound like a wide number of them were touched on during the select committee process. So I just say to my colleagues on that select committee that if they ever need a sub I have always enjoyed participating in those debates and I am happy to do so again.It is very interesting watching the National Government’s strong support for the value of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I still remember National’s reaction when we introduced it. It just has no qualms at all about doing an absolute flip-flop from its staunch opposition then to its staunch support now without any justification. It just changes its mind and pretends the past did not happen. Well the difficulty with doing that is that the comments that were made by members at the time who are currently Ministers are on the public record. You only have to go to the Hansards and get them. You can look back at the archives of radio and television—Kris Faafoi: Got any?Hon RUTH DYSON: I did not bring any with me but I tell you what Mr Faafoi I do not need to look it up in Hansard to recall that Bill English when he was sitting over on this side of the House in Opposition said to Dr Michael Cullen when the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was established: “This is a dog.” That is what he said: “This fund is a dog.”Well I know what the expression is about dogs and now Mr English is treating the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as if it is his best friend. Perhaps that is what he meant by “a dog” because now it is the greatest investment—the greatest idea. It is as if he had thought of it. It is as if he had supported it instead of bagging it at the time and failing to see how important it was and is for New Zealand to not just plan in the short term to not just go for the cheap political wins that the current National Government does and to not dismiss any long-term need of our country and our citizens in the arrogant way that those members do. Even the first-termers have got an arrogant swag which I find extraordinary really.But actually our responsibility as a Parliament and certainly Bill English’s responsibility as the Minister of Finance should be to look to the long term. What should we be doing now in 2015 2016 and 2017 to make sure that future generations have at least as good a time as us in our beautiful country but preferably a better time?One of the reasons for us to look so much to the future—it has always been the case that Governments and Parliaments should. But a particular pressure for us to do that now is the changing demographic of our population. We in this Parliament all know that in a few years’ time there will be a far higher percentage of our population who will be eligible for New Zealand superannuation and there will be a much smaller percentage of our population who are in a paid job and paying their taxes which goes towards paying for New Zealand superannuation. What does that mean?Well there are a whole lot of policy alternatives we could look at but one of the blindingly obvious proposals that the New Zealand Parliament considered in 2003 was to say: “We should save for the future. We should set up a fund that appropriations can be put into. We can deposit money into a fund and in future years the investment and the actual deposit on that fund can be used to partially offset the increased costs of superannuation.” That was not rocket science. It was very logical. It was a very good thing to do and we knew that it would give future generations of people who want to have New Zealand superannuation in the same way that our generation wants to have it more confidence that there would be more money in the bank in the future. So that was the point of doing that. That was the point of the establishment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in 2003 and the National Party’s reaction to the establishment of that fund—saving for the future—was to call it a dog.I heard one of the contributors earlier—I cannot actually remember his name but one of the contributors from National—say it is outrageous to borrow money to invest in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and that it is like getting out the credit card to pay for something that you need. Well that is absolute nonsense particularly in light of the fact that the National Government was very willing to borrow money to pay for tax cuts. It borrowed money to pay for tax cuts not for everyone in New Zealand but for the highest-income earners. So people in this Parliament—the highest-income earners in New Zealand—got a tax cut from money that the National Government borrowed. It borrowed to pay for tax cuts but it would not borrow to put ongoing contributions into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. That is a muddled policy. That is a selfish short-term outlook on how our financial management should be run.You just have to look at the returns from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to see how good it is. Last year the investments from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund returned 18 percent so now that fund is at $29.6 billion. That money would not be there in the bank in the fund had that fund not been established in 2003.If National had continued the contributions to the scheme instead of suspending them and borrowing to pay for tax cuts there would be $18.2 billion more in that fund—$12.7 million of unmade capital contribution and $5.5 billion of forgone earnings. That is a lot of money that we do not have because of National’s short-sighted economic planning.We have billions of dollars in that fund that can give our younger New Zealanders particularly the confidence that frankly I think they deserve to have. They are New Zealanders. They are working hard. They are studying hard. They will be buying houses—well if they have got a good KiwiSaver account they will be buying houses—and raising a family and contributing to our community. I think they should have what we will benefit from—that is access to New Zealand superannuation.The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have said that New Zealanders would be $6.2 billion better off if contributions had continued compared with the cost of borrowing—$6.2 billion better off compared with the cost of borrowing. That is what National gave away. That is what National should have invested in. This legislation at least does a bit to improve the standing of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and I am pleased to support it.