Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14003. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree with theDominion Post report that “Bill English was gushing about the NZ Super Fund yesterday” saying it was “one of the best-structured sovereign wealth funds in the world”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No I do not agree that I was gushing; I was simply pointing out what is a widely acknowledged fact. As the member may want to point out to the House I went on to praise the architect of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund Dr Michael Cullen who was the finance spokesman when Labour had finance spokespeople who knew how to handle Labour’s spending instincts. That is why he set it up—to protect New Zealand from the Labour caucus—and he did a great job.Hon David Parker: Is it correct that he voted against the New Zealand Superannuation Fund voted against the formation of KiwiSaver as Minister of Finance halted contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund opposes universal KiwiSaver and will not address the age of eligibility of New Zealand superannuation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am just trying to remember the order but it goes something like yes yes no no yes—I think—to answer any one of those questions. Of course the Government has made pragmatic decisions about contributions to the Superannuation Fund. The fund was designed to make contributions when we had surpluses. Dr Cullen made sure that happened so that Labour did not waste them. Unfortunately we have had to deal with the legacy of deficits that Labour left behind. When we have cleared up that mess we will start making contributions again.Hon David Parker: Given that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation estimate that the fund would be a net—that is net of the extra contributions—$2.2 billion better off had he not suspended contributions in 2009 is he now prepared to admit that his suspension of contributions has decreased the wealth of the fund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact our policy simply follows the Labour policy as articulated by David Shearer when he said: “We have listened. That’s why I won’t continue with [the] previous policy to restore contributions to the … Super Fund until … we can afford it.” That is our policy too.Louise Upston: What were Treasury’s fiscal and economic forecasts in late 2008 and into 2009 which influenced the incoming Government’s decision to temporarily suspend contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forecasts actually showed that if the Government had maintained the spending and policy track it had inherited we would never return to surplus and that net Government debt would have exceeded 60 percent of GDP by the early 2020s. Under this Government’s sensible policy debt will be around 20 percent of GDP—around one-third of that projected as a result of the Labour Party policies.Hon David Parker: Did the temporary suspension of contributions to which Mrs Upston referred begin in 2008 and is it predicted to end under his Government’s policy only in 2020?Hon Steven Joyce: Well if it was Labour it would be 2030.Hon BILL ENGLISH: My colleague makes a good point. If we followed the Labour Party policies that we inherited we would be restoring contributions in about 2070 because it would have taken that long to get debt back to some kind of reasonable level. I do not think that the member’s party’s policy has changed. His previous leader said a Labour Government would make contributions when the country can afford it. We think that is reasonable and we agree with that policy.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for and should not misrepresent Labour Party policy.Mr SPEAKER: The question was around when the—[Interruption] Order! The question was really around first of all when did the contributions conclude and then when they might start again. He is allowed to justify that in my opinion.Hon David Parker: How can he be gushing about the Superannuation Fund when he voted against it and said at the time that the scheme was “a dog”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact is that at the time there was extensive discussion over whether the New Zealand Government could maintain the surpluses required to continue making contributions. It turned out that within 4 or 5 years that was not the case so I think we were probably half right. On the other half the fund has turned out to be well structured making good returns and we support its continuation.Louise Upston: What reports has he seen setting out sensible approaches to making contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I saw one report that I thought was pretty sensible. It said that “The government will make contributions to the Fund from available surpluses. Where these are insufficient for making the required contribution a reduced contribution would be made.” I would venture to suggest that if the speaker had contemplated deficits he would have said that if there were deficits we probably would not contribute. That comment came from Dr Michael Cullen. I think the legislation was structured in a way that allowed the Government to make up its own mind about whether to contribute and we have and the Labour Party now supports National’s policy.