Gosche Mark: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
Gosche Mark: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4849] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The previous member’s speech illustrates why he will never be the National Party leader: because he is lazy basically. If he had read the report that he put his name to as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee he would have seen something very interesting under mortgage diversion. I will read a couple of sentences: “Therefore and because of time constraints we were advised that mortgage repayments would be best handled through financial education and the contributions holiday mechanism. Even so we feel that such a facility has merit and would be welcomed by scheme members and is consequently worth further consideration.” But the problem with John Key is that he is so busy preening himself he forgets to read the papers. That is why in his electorate they recently put out a party fund-raiser for $30 a week and they did not tell the policeman who was coming along to speak as a member of the New Zealand Police that he was actually coming to speak at a National Party fund-raiser. That is the laziness of the man. That is the lack of attention to detail that means he will never be the leader. 
I would say this at least about Craig Foss Mr Tremain and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: they do their work. They read the papers. They come to the select committee ask sensible questions and even more important they actually know what the committee report stated because their names are on it. They did not object to it; there is no minority report actually stating that the National Party opposed the bill. National members signed up to the statement that mortgage diversion was a good idea. 
The Finance and Expenditure Committee considered whether to incorporate a mortgage diversion facility into the KiwiSaver Bill—to allow the diversion of contributions towards the repayment of a mortgage—because the entire committee felt it was not a bad idea. However some of us were worried about the effect it would have on those low-paid workers whom we on this side of the House are very keen to see “saving for their future.” I have to say that apart from Mr Key the rest of the committee worked on that assiduously and we worked together very cooperatively. We listened to the views of Opposition members and they listened to the views of the Government and of other members. We were very constructive. But a member actually has to be looking at the papers engaging in the business and listening to the submissions before that member knows what he or she is talking about. 
John Key showed that although he is National’s finance spokesperson he actually did not know anything about this bill. He is very busy thinking about the future leadership about how good he might look on camera and about how many people know how famous he is. He told us in fact that the committee should not have sub-committees because if we go to Auckland and hear submissions but only as a sub-committee the public might not know anybody there except for him—because he is the one who is famous. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Woolerton remembers that slight on the rest of the committee. John Key is so far up himself it ain’t funny. That is why he does not take any notice of what is in the bill. 
What is in the bill is good. It is actually taking account of those people from the industry who came along and said: “We think this is moving too fast.” so the committee has delayed it by 3 months. The industry has said that that is good is sensible and shows that Parliament works. It also said that a whole lot of other changes were necessary to make this bill better in terms of compliance costs for employers. I know that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel had a lot of input behind the scenes on behalf of small business to make sure that compliance costs were brought down. As a result the select committee has done that in a very positive way while working together as we should. 
What we have now is simple low-cost and voluntary. I think that is hugely important. The scheme is workplace based. That is something that New Zealand workers and employers have not had. So one after another people from industry and people from business have come in and said: “We like this; we think it’s great.” Some of them said they supported compulsion but most of them said they would like to see the scheme remain voluntary. 
We have made some changes. We have made sure that those low-paid workers who do want to save—and we had a lot of those low-paid workers come before the committee and say they wanted to be able to save—are able to do that and so the ability for employers to contribute to the accounts of their workers is a good way of resolving that issue. I felt like Jeanette Fitzsimons—a little concerned for our low-paid workers. So I think the compromise is in fact a good one because if the employer can put in 2 percent and the employee puts in 2 percent we have to a large degree resolved the issue that Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party were concerned about. We in the Labour team were also concerned about it as were New Zealand First United Future and most members of the National Party—except one member—and that is why we have made that very positive change. 
The change will be welcomed. We heard from submitters who said that some of the best savers in New Zealand are the lowest paid. Why? Because nobody will lend them money. They have to save for everything they need so they have a savings ethic because it is forced upon them. This measure actually gives them an avenue for looking forward to a couple of very positive things. The first is saving for their retirement and equally important for low-paid people the second is looking at the opportunity to save to buy that first home through this KiwiSaver proposal. 
The $5000 that each saver might be able to get—which means that a couple could get $10000—is a big deal to New Zealanders but not to John Key. He is totally out of touch with the reality of ordinary New Zealanders. He still thinks that he is somewhere up in the clouds with Merrill Lynch but members over on this side and the select committee members I have to say except him actually understand that this will be a good step-up for many many New Zealanders who are dreaming about homeownership or thinking: “I want to save for my retirement.” 
That $1000 contribution from the Government is a great start. I met with a lot of workers over the adjournment at a number of meetings I attended throughout Auckland and their eyes lit up when I told them about KiwiSaver because those people have a genuine desire to take care of their futures. They have a genuine desire to see their families in their own homes and this KiwiSaver Bill which is supported by the vast majority in this House for all the right reasons will actually give those people great hope in the future. 
We had to make some changes as I said in respect of the start-up dates. Since the bill has been reported back sensible measures have been announced in terms of employer contributions being tax free. As well the mortgage diversion promoted by United Future’s very good member Gordon Copeland has now become a reality. I welcome that and the committee welcomed that—and that is stated in the report. 
Again I go back to John Key the would-be leader of the National Party and ask him please to learn to read the report that has his name on it so that when he stands up in the House to make a speech he does not make a complete idiot of himself by talking about the mortgage diversion scheme as if it were something the select committee and the Government said was impossible when the committee actually said it was worth further consideration and possible in a very short space of time. The scheme is not hugely complicated at all in my view and nor was the committee ever told that it was. We were told that the banks had some difficulty with it not that it could not be done through the bill. 
But we have done it now. That is how Parliament works under an MMP system and that is why the National Party will always be in Opposition—because it does not know how to work with anybody else. It cannot even work within its own ranks. We constantly see John Key disagreeing with the very good member Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Smith comes to the House having read his papers and although he does disagree with us from time to time at least he has some logic to his arguments. They are not based on lazy slack work attitudes like the arguments of John Key but are based on some of the work that Dr Smith actually does with his colleagues who sit around him. 
I am very proud of this bill and of this Government. This is momentous legislation. In 20 or 30 years’ time people who are sitting in their own homes or who are comfortably retired with a decent nest egg will thank this Parliament for this bill. I am proud to be part of the select committee that has done such good work to put this bill into a better shape than it was in when we first received it. I know that when we finish this debate in the House in the next week or so the bill will be in an even better shape.