Hughes Darren: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16157] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I will do my best to comply with your observation Mr Chair. Of course one of the difficulties we have had is that with this bill going through under urgency and with an Supplementary Order Paper that is larger than the bill itself being dropped on the Committee members of Parliament who have not sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee have not had the chance to go through it quite as thoroughly and forensically as they would like to. So we would dearly love to comply entirely with the— 
Sandra Goudie 
: So what’s in the bill then? We’ve had enough of that so what’s in the bill then? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Sandra Goudie pipes up from over there and it is a great pleasure to hear her because she has done nothing—I was going to say all day but in fact I think it is all year. I think she has not had anything to do all year. Now she squawks at the last minute on a Friday— 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In spite of the comments that you have just made in regard to speaking to the perimeters of the bill the member has clearly flouted that advice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Firstly that is not a point of order. I am in the Chair and I will judge relevancy. Secondly the member interjected and invited a response. If the member wishes for the Hon Darren Hughes to keep on task then let him keep on task. As we know he is prone to a few distractions. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chair. The principle of cause and effect is well and truly alive in the Committee of the whole House today. I want to keep my comments limited almost exclusively to clause 100B which I say to Sandra Goudie is on page 66 of the bill. The clause has the word “contribution” in it which is not normally a word associated with her. But none the less there it is at the top of the page: clause 100B “Crown contribution”. This goes to quite a technical aspect of the KiwiSaver scheme which is the inability of a member of the public who is in the workforce and paying PAYE to join the KiwiSaver scheme. I would like the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts to make a contribution and clarify the amendment to clause 100B—and this is not part of the Supplementary Order Paper; it is part of the bill as reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee—to substitute the words “a member” with “a member before they reach the New Zealand superannuation qualification age”. For the benefit of the Minister in the chair I point out that this is at the top of page 66 of the bill.  
I think that goes to quite an interesting point about the scheme as it is in operation. At a time of enormous unemployment in New Zealand when prices are rising faster than wages the only economic sign of a glimmer of hope is in the numbers of people aged over 65 in the workforce. That group of workers is growing every time Statistics New Zealand that very fine agency reports on the make-up of the labour market. It is an interesting point. So where this connects right into clause 100B is that we have an increasing number of workers over the age of 65 but this clause prevents their membership of KiwiSaver even though they are taxpayers.  
I would like the Minister to make a comment about that. Clearly the Government has looked at that issue again. It was not part of the original KiwiSaver scheme. We know this Government has made a lot of changes to the original KiwiSaver Act. Part 5 sets out some additional changes to the 2006 legislation of the previous Labour Government but this is another change on the issue of whether a member can remain in KiwiSaver as they turn 65 or whether they can decide to join when they are over the age of 65. So there has now been an overt policy decision from the Government which has now worked its way through the process into clause 100B and I would be very interested to know whether the Government ordered extra work to be done and made a decision to exclude those people from KiwiSaver. If clause 100B was not there there would be alternative wording in respect of those who are eligible for the qualification age for New Zealand superannuation. But the insertion of clause 100B shows that there has been a decision not to extend the scheme. So if the Minister could perhaps go over that for us it would be a very useful piece of information.  
People do say to us: “Look I’m working 40 hours I’m paying tax and yes I’m claiming New Zealand superannuation. But I have paid taxes over 45 working years for that entitlement.” In New Zealand we have a universal entitlement for superannuation. KiwiSaver is of course 8 percent of that person’s wages so they would be forfeiting by choice that money from their own salary or wages whatever it might be in order to be able to pay it into the scheme and the tax credit that comes with it arguably is funded by the current PAYE that that person is paying on their income. So that Crown contribution through the tax credit includes I presume the $1000 kick-start for people who join KiwiSaver. One of the attractions of the scheme is that people receive $1000 immediately. That is a different form of Crown contribution. I think we want some clarification around clause 100B. In respect of a person over 65 who joins the scheme and pays in the 8 percent they do not get the tax credit but I am not sure whether they get the $1000 kick-start. That could be an alternative approach for the Crown contribution that is made at that time.