Logie Jan: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: KiwiSaver Budget Measures Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):Just to respond to the point about growing the economy and that being the way to increase savings I would like to draw the member Brett Hudson’s attention to this little graph from the Parliamentary Library. [Interruption] Oh facts! We have facts in the debate—goodness! It shows that in the 1980s household savings were just around $700 per household in New Zealand. Then after this Government’s reforms in the 1990s they went down to a point of almost negative $1500 I think while you were so busy in your paradigm growing the economy.Then we just managed to get above zero again after the introduction of KiwiSaver. Although I have some issues with some of the impact of KiwiSaver on inequality the fact that it has improved average household savings is irrefutable. We have evidence from the Inland Revenue Department that tells us that the highly successful recognition for KiwiSaver is the $1000 kick-start payment—92 percent recognition. It is the most successful part of the programme.The projected increase in KiwiSaver membership is approximately 300000 over the next 4 years. There would be fiscal savings to be made from cutting that kick-start; however quoting the Inland Revenue Department from its 2011 regulatory impact statement: “this could damage KiwiSaver’s attractiveness to new members. There is a strong psychological boost attached with such an early initial increase in a member’s funds and on balance the potential damage to public perception and to the initial attractiveness of KiwiSaver outweighs the diminishing value of fiscal savings made by reducing or removing the iconic kick-start payment.” That is the advice. But of course we do not have the advice being presented. And the members on that side of the House do not have the advice because the regulatory impact statement did not ask those questions. The officials were not given the opportunity to provide that advice to the Government because this legislation happened at the last minute to try to get closer to that ever-elusive surplus.The only questions that were actually asked and the only advice given to this House on the impacts of this bill were on what it would do to the Government’s bottom line because actually it just cares about the public relations exercise. That is what this is about. This is not about the current account deficit. This is not about the distribution of wealth in this country. This is not even about people’s savings or anything to do with our society and the well-being of people. This is a public relations exercise.I want to remind the members on that side of the House that if an economy is not working for everyone it is not working. What you are putting at risk is something that has helped get our households back—some of them at least—into savings. This country has a massive issue with income inequality. You say that you care about that and that is why you are increasing benefit rates and that is well well overdue. But this country also has a very significant problem with wealth inequality. The top 1 percent in this country own 51.8 percent of the net wealth—that is as of the last time we had those figures. The bottom 20 percent have zero or little wealth and many of them are in debt.That is partially why this $1000 contribution is so critically important. It is not peripheral. This is not about the middle class because that $1000 contribution was the one thing that everyone could get even if they were on a low income and unable to contribute from out of their wages to the scheme because they wanted to ensure that their children could eat. I understand that you want to feed your kids before you put money in the savings for your retirement. I totally understand that. That is what this $1000 represents. This legislation is the ripping away of that. That is not about a redistribution of wealth or consideration for the well-being of our society as was suggested from that side of the House. It is the exact opposite. I really do take objection to the way that this has just been pushed through under urgency.