Jones Shane: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13328] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora no tatou. The Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill is very important legislation and as is reflective of the general attitude of this side of the House to savings and financial challenges we actually support the bill. So it behoves me to take every second of the 10 minutes to ensure that not a single New Zealander—and dare I say it Australian and Pacific Islander too—watches the final 45 minutes of this afternoon’s debate without understanding that point. 
David Garrett 
: Watching 45 minutes of what? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: We have heard from Mr Garrett; we know that he has dealt with ”Private Roy”. He can go back to his seat now. We do not want to be distracted by that matter. 
Mr Gilmore said this legislation pertains to GST. GST is a key feature and a consumption-based tax and anything that simplifies it ought to be supported. 
I really want to turn to the elements that relate to KiwiSaver. It is a tragedy that KiwiSaver has been wrecked by the current Government and although we will support these amendments I point out that they are of a technical nature. The underlying architecture of KiwiSaver has been rudely injured and almost fatally injured as a consequence of the parsimony and uninterested attitude of the current Government in respect of supporting savings. But wait; help is on the way! KiwiSaver ought to be a simple process. KiwiSaver is designed to achieve what the Prime Minister talks about but unfortunately very rarely acts upon—that is making up for the lost ground in relation to the nation’s savings deficit. If the Government had continued the fit of generosity and commitment that the previous Labour Government showed to gross savings KiwiSaver would have increased those savings. 
I talked today to a senior member of the Wellington commercial community who had had the good fortune to bump into a bank and that bank told the person that its customers are now growing far more enthusiastic about the idea of seeing their regular balances and the improvement in their savings position. They are disappointed not only that the Cullen fund is being gutted but also that KiwiSaver contributions may be under threat as a consequence of the niggardly approach that the current Government has taken. 
The bill will go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is interesting that Mr Bill English was formerly a member of that committee and indeed when John Key replaced Don Brash Bill English replaced John Key on that committee. I recall Mr English on a number of occasions talking about the importance of dealing with the country’s indebtedness. KiwiSaver is a fantastic instrument to enable that to take place. It is not the only type of savings we have in New Zealand but it will likely grow poorer if all we see are minor technical changes in terms of the greater debate that has been neglected by the Government. It is akin to pettifogging. What have we seen? A committee has been created to address the underlying problem. That committee is likely to come up with a set of ideas that will come perilously close to the time of the election contest and the opportunity of the last 3 years will unfortunately have been lost. It will have been lost because 3 years have been squandered to deal with the underlying opportunity to take a risk and actually grow people’s enthusiasm. I sense the word “enthusiasm” coming from the other side of the House as members there seek to embrace a deeper commitment to savings. 
It is a moot point as to whether savings ought to be compulsory but we should not overlook the fact that the Australians have a compulsory system. As a consequence of that Australia’s savings record outstrips ours and as long as we do not have a compulsory system we will have to live with that gap. We know that the gap is something that the current Government has become painfully aware of. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: So what did you do about savings? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: A reasonable question has been posed. The man was referring to you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will not ask you what you are doing. You are transfixed as a consequence of this debate on a Thursday afternoon. This is not an issue of what this side of the House is doing; this is an issue of what the Government has not done and all it is able to bring forward are some very minor almost parsimonious changes that will not make a difference to the real challenge that lies ahead of us. 
I give an assurance that this side of the House is progressing well on its savings policy. All types of people are bringing not only their ideas but their support anticipating the emergence of an innovative set of policies and a plan because half of the task that we have before us is turning up with a plan. I will not repeat what other members have said—there is a paucity of thinking and a total absence of a plan from the Government—but I will say that the reason why we support these changes is that our policy iterations will be sophisticated. 
Grant Robertson 
: And clever. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Although these changes are of a technical nature they actually build on the architecture that was laid down by Dr Cullen. It will probably stand as a part of the proud legacy of the previous Government that an overdue step was taken in respect of the savings architecture and savings culture. That culture appeals to garden-variety Kiwis and it definitely appeals to businesses. We have a few reactionary forces and random voices threatening to emulate Hone Harawira’s style of politics and revolt in the event that employers are required as a consequence of a compulsory savings policy to contribute to an employee’s savings but that is a matter of their theatrics. The deeper issue is that New Zealanders want to save they want encouragement to save they want a simple process where they can save and they want to know that their savings will go into enterprises that will deepen the reservoirs of capital and enable talented people to remain in New Zealand and grow enterprises as a consequence of having access to capital that has an indigenous origin. Although businesses are enjoying the prospect of greater savings they know that they cannot rely purely on bank finance or imported capital. But over time whether they are small start-up firms firms in the middle of their growth trajectory or very large firms that have managed to spread out to other jurisdictions they will have access to a range of professionally managed savings schemes. Slowly but surely we will recover the lost ground which is continuously being lost unfortunately day after day through the Government’s inattention and I suppose confusion as to what to do. 
Let it be said that all successful economies thrive on the basis of accumulated capital and productivity. We will support this legislation today because it is a small attempt to address that and because it is consistent with our general bipartisan approach to matters of important economic enterprises. We know that businesses and garden-variety Kiwis want to get behind a savings culture and a savings enterprise that will make a difference to the long-term wealth-generating capacity of the country and to prosperity at the level of individual New Zealand families New Zealand communities and dare I say this of the overall New Zealand economy. It is fitting that we should arrive at this point where I signal that we support the bill. There will be a few refinements as befits the intellect that we will bring to the task. Thank you very much.