Dalziel Lianne: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4913] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Part 2 contains three subparts which are very important to the implementation of the scheme. Subpart 1 talks about becoming members of KiwiSaver Subpart 2 deals with the allocation of people to KiwiSaver schemes and Subpart 3 transfers between KiwiSaver schemes. So those really are the operational aspects of the KiwiSaver legislation. 
It was interesting to listen to other members’ contributions to the debate on Part 1 because they are relevant to this part as well. This part gives effect to the objective of the legislation which is to encourage people to take up savings. As the Minister of Finance said in the second reading debate this is not designed to make savings compulsory; he said that it was designed to make savings compelling rather than compulsory. Of course I too recall the Post Office Savings Bank books that we had with the little squirrel on the front. I think “saving for a rainy day” was the message we were given in those days. I certainly did not have parents to bail me out for anything I wanted to buy in my time growing up. I worked from the time I was old enough to go in with my dad and earn a few dollars at the office by putting things in numerical order. Then I worked in a dairy after school and then I worked in a hospital. I spent my time working to support myself for quite some time. 
Brian Connell 
: Did you save anything? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. Saving money was not very easy to do when I was being paid 40c an hour—that was how much I was being paid when I was 14 years old. But I did manage to save up for the things I really wanted the most. I think that is something in our culture that we have lost. I wanted a pair of ice skating boots; my parents could not afford to buy them for me because they had seven children and if one person got one thing then everyone else would be lining up for it as well. So my parents said to me: “If you want ice skating boots you save up for them yourself.” At 40c an hour I saved up week after week after week and those boots cost me $45. I still was not a very good ice-skater but what a fantastic lesson I learnt: if people want something they have to work for it and save for it themselves because no one else will do it for them. 
It was interesting that comments were made about training opportunity and needs. Yes training opportunity and needs are very fine but when those opportunities are often ones that people have to learn for themselves it is those people’s parents who give them the lessons in life that stand them in good stead for the future. 
What we are doing here is about accessing those who can save. People who earn an income can save. Not all of them will be in a position to save which is why this is an opt-out scheme. It is not an opt-in scheme because we know that people may not take that step to give up some of their salary in order to save for their future. We are offering an opt-out scheme so people are automatically enrolled. That is what this part does: it provides automatic enrolment so there are automatic deductions of contributions made from people’s salary—the next pay calculated after the new employment begins. 
I thought a really important part of the scheme was for that deduction to happen straight away so people could look at the pay packet and see what it looked like without the money there. There is the ability to opt out but we are hoping that with a common trait known as inertia—which I certainly experience on occasions—a lot more people will remain in the scheme because it will take some effort to come out of it. But for those who cannot afford it the opt-out provisions are there. This is not a compulsory scheme. Yes we are setting it up to make it easy for those who can save to do so but we are not forcing people to save even though we might think that to do so would be good not only for them but for our country as well. 
I do not believe I have heard any good alternative arguments especially the one about pool boys. The idea of somebody having to spend his or her finances on pool boys to clean his or her swimming pool—it is not even gender neutral; it was always men rather than woman who were talked about as being employed to do those particular jobs—is ridiculous.