we'll start contributing to the super fund.
super fund. Question no. 3, Metiria Turei. Tena
koe, Mr Speaker.
Yes.
Yes. Supplementary question, Metiria Turei. Did did the PM
use genXars the generation to be the full cost
of his planned changes
to
that, of course, is not what's been decided or not decided. What
I would
member needs to answer is why the Greens think
member needs to answer is why the
anything about it, about the rising cost of super, so that gen X and
anyone who follows them continue
to pay for a superannuation when
lives are getting longer, our working
lives are getting longer, our life
expectancy is better, and
there's ever reason to want to spread our
resource so we don't focus at
all on retirement income but have some left
for health and education.
Supplementary question,
Supplementary question, Metiria Turei. Has the PM seen the evidence
that the retirement savings
for those born in the 1970s is likely to
be
those born in the 1970s is likely to
born before, and, if so, why is he targeting that generation with
the biggest burden of
his planned
Hon PM. Well, Mr Speaker, the younger generation, of course,
entering ki saver much earlier than
the previous generation did, because
the scheme only began
about ten years ago. They will
of course, it always feels like a struggle to get ahead,
particularly in your late 30s and early 40s,
they have the benefit of economic
policy that supports growth in incomes,
growth of job opportunities,
an innovative economy with a
real sense of direction. And I have to
say that that is a bit of a better outlook
than previous generations in New
make their way through very significant economic restructuring.
Every generation has
its challenges. We understand generation X has
theirs and we're here
to support them through it.
theirs and we're here to support them through it. When the PM
chose generation X to bear
this burden, did he also understand that this
was the generation who also bore
the full cost of student
loans and
the implications of the announcement made yesterday, which is
to somewhat reduce the burden on
generations coming into the workforce compared
to the Greens' proposition,
which seems to be that they should bear
any burden that will enable the
Greens not to have to change
national superannuation. I mean,
I can't understand the member's
logic. Our announcement reduces
the burden somewhat on the
younger generation. somewhat
somewhat on the younger generation. It doesn't choose a generation
to carry the burden.
That's what the Greens are doing.
carry the burden. That's what the Greens are doing. Supplementary
question, Metiria Turei. Can the PM
please explain how he expects
young people, our kids, actually, how
they should plan for their retirement
and pay for ours when they are already
struggling with high
student loans
has its own challenges that it needs to
has its own challenges that it needs
this Government, face a future with supportive lower taxes, a policy
that helps the economy grow, and
is consistently and moderately lifting
their incomes. What would
make their planning very difficult is if the
Green Party decided to cross
over or scrap the announcement, the
policy, that was made yesterday, or if
they actually got the chance to
implement their policies of higher government
spending and higher taxes, a burden
that would certainly be
carried by
question, Metiria Turei. Why is the PM forcing our kids to work much
harder than we did
for their birth
harder than he or I had to do, for a good education... Order! I
can't now hear the question. I will invite
the member to start the question again.
And it's to be heard
without interjection from the
And it's to be heard without
side. Thank you. Why is the PM forcing our kids to work much
harder than us
forcing our kids to work much harder
home and now for just security in their
home and now for just security in
admiring, actually, of the work ethic of a whole lot of our
younger generation. I get to see
how hard many of them
generation. I get to see how hard
of the announcements made yesterday
period of their life on national super when they turn 67 as someone
turning 65 today. Slightly more. And
they will enjoy longer years of better health. Now, they do
have some challenges. As I said,
we are there to support them. What is
going to make life hard for them
is the policies of the
Labour and the
whole lot more taxpayers' money on stuff that doesn't work. I don't
welcome those policies. Supplementary question,
Supplementary question, Metiria Turei. Why is the PM fuelling
the intergenerational struggle
intergenerational struggle between our generation, his and mine,
and our children's generation
by locking them out of housing, forcing
them to pay for their own education, pay for
their kids' education, pay for
their parents' super, and now have to
wait
member still is under the burden of a basic misunderstanding. The
announcement
a basic misunderstanding. The
policy somewhat reduces the burden on the generation who will be
paying for super. It is actually the
Greens and Labour policy which says nothing
will ever change that guarantees
growth in the burden
on our workforce in a way
that we believe is not fair or reasonable. So,
we are lightening the burden. Labour
and the
are lightening the burden. Labour
political benefit, want to keep the burden in place and
ensure it gets worse.
burden in place and ensure it gets worse. Question No. 4. The Rt
Hon Winston Peters.
My
My question is to the Prime
by his statement to The Nation,
because so many more people are working as they
get through the age 60, 65,
that super is more
affordable than was expected,
say, 15 years ago.
I haven't made the same
undertaking as John,
so we have the opportunity