Tremain Chris: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4935] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 4 of the KiwiSaver Bill which gives the specific detail of the KiwiSaver scheme. I welcome Minister Clayton Cosgrove to the chair and say that I am looking forward to his reply on this part of the debate just to demonstrate his knowledge of the KiwiSaver Bill. It will be fascinating. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not like to interrupt my colleague but I think that in fairness to the Minister in the chair my colleague should refer to him by his correct name. I know it was an oversight but I suggest that my colleague might like to refer to him as Minister Damien O’Connor. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sure he will. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Madam Chair you do not have to demand an apology here: I will withdraw and apologise. 
John Key 
: I think that was one of the harshest things you have ever said about Damien. Your career is over! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: My apologies. I come back to where I left off on the KiwiSaver scheme. The deadline has already closed for KiwiSaver scheme default providers. The fact that the deadline has closed already was a key point that came up in the submissions we received in the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the actual time frame in which the bill would be passed. 
I want to talk about a couple of submissions the committee received that dealt with the deadlines that have to be achieved in order to get to the point in time where the bill can be implemented. In the submission process it was pointed out that the implementation time frame is a significant issue. The first deadline we had to overcome was the time by which default providers had to provide their submissions. A couple of submissions stated that the time frame was too short for a successful implementation of the bill. We have the likes of KPMG Mercer New Zealand the Financial Services Institute of Australasia Chatswood Consulting Ltd Business New Zealand ANZ National Bank Ltd ASB group Comacc Ltd and Superlife Ltd all submitting that the time frame was too short. A number of others went on to say that the time frame despite its having been moved out to 1 July would still be too short. A number of submitters believed it should have been moved out to 1 October 2007. ANZ National Bank Ltd the ASB group the Meat Industry Association and others thought it should be moved out to 31 December 2007. 
So I have some sympathy for those default providers that have had to put up submissions for this scheme—firstly because of the initial start time which I still believe is unworkable at 1 July. The application process they had to undertake was onerous particularly given the systems that these major providers will have to install in order to deal with the issues of the KiwiSaver Bill and particularly given that having put up a submission a number of significant changes have been made to the bill as recently as last week. So once again these submitters are having to deal with changes being made on the hoof—last-minute policy to be enacted within a deadline of 1 July. And here we are expecting this KiwiSaver Bill to have credibility in the marketplace. I ask the Minister to say whether he thinks this is genuinely achievable—whether the providers will be able to achieve this date delivering credibility into the marketplace and ensuring that as many employees and employers as possible get on board with the bill and take it forward. 
Despite those complaints about the submission time every fund manager and his dog actually wants to be on board with it. They see it as a huge opportunity because they see it ultimately turning into a compulsory situation. They see that while in the short term it will cost them some money—they do not see themselves making a lot of money out of it in the short term—in the long haul they see it as being a real winner for them. 
I want to talk about some of the conflicting views on the number of applications that were put in. Firstly the Finance and Expenditure Committee asked to see the terms of reference for the application process. It was unfortunate that we were unable to see those terms of reference until after the deadline had closed which was somewhat disappointing. Despite this we believe there were 10 to 15 submitters. But in saying that the parameters and time frames were so difficult that as many as 90 percent of the submitters voiced concern about the time frame within which they had to submit. As a result the date has moved back to 1 July. As I said previously I am still concerned that that deadline will be difficult to meet. 
The actual decision about who will be the default providers will be politically contentious—there is no doubt about that. Who will be the lucky four to six default providers that will be involved in this scheme? We put the question about the number of providers to the Government and it came back and denied that there was a pre-set number.