Boscawen John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Boscawen John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2798] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this occasion particularly for me personally because I have been ill on my back for the last 3 days and sadly had to listen to Dr Cullen’s valedictory last night from the comfort of my living room in Auckland. So it is good to be back in the Chamber. 
Before I address the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I wonder whether I might have the House’s indulgence to acknowledge the fact that I along with four of my colleagues have just returned from the Speaker’s tour with the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith—a tour of 5 days in Japan and 5 days in Viet Nam. I had the privilege of travelling with Nicky Wagner Dr Ashraf Choudhary Raymond Huo and of course Dr Lockwood Smith. I think the trip was an outstanding success and I believe huge credit goes to Dr Smith. During the course of our very many meetings with members of the Government of Japan and in Viet Nam it was very obvious that Dr Smith’s experience—first 6 years as a Minister of Education and then 3 years as an Associate Minister of Finance—was absolutely invaluable in our negotiations and meetings. 
We met with the President of Viet Nam who was—and I will keep this brief—second only to the chairman of the Vietnamese Communist Party and Mr Trong the chairman of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. In Tokyo we met with the Minister of Finance Prime Minister Aso and also Speaker Kono the Speaker who invited us to Japan in the first place. 
I was not intending to take a call on this bill but the last two speakers have urged me to my feet. I had said to my colleague Mr Flavell of the Maori Party that I would not be speaking. But what did Mr Parker say? After getting up and justifying the fact that the Labour Government had done nothing with the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill he went on to talk about and list the things that Labour had done. He said that Labour had introduced Working for Families. That was the subject of a question that I put in the House this very afternoon. Working for Families imposes on working families a marginal tax rate of between 55 percent and 60 percent. If Working for Families recipients want to improve themselves by working overtime they will be penalised with tax rates of 55 percent to 60 percent. I say 55 percent to 60 percent because that is the rate that applies to most Working for Families recipients. Sadly for recipients earning between $10000 and $20000 the rate is actually over 100 percent. Under Working for Families people earning between $10000 and $20000 actually lose every single cent of any extra income they earn. For those earning between $20000 and $80000 the marginal tax rate is 55 percent to 60 percent. So Working for Families is a classic example of a scheme that was very badly designed. 
I also refer to the fact that the marginal tax rate— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are on the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Thus far I am not sure that the member speaking is aware that that is the bill that is being debated. Although we expect a reasonably wide-ranging debate on a third reading the points that the member is raising are not related in any way shape or form to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has made a good point. I say to the member speaking Mr Boscawen that he is 3 minutes and 20 seconds into his speech and he has mentioned the bill in passing once. I suggest that he now having made some preliminary comments brings himself to the bill. The third reading is about the bill; it is not a wide-ranging discussion on a member’s recent Speaker’s tour or party policies on other matters. We are now discussing the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I did not want to leave the comments of Mr Parker unchallenged. Before I come back to them I will address issues in this bill. 
I thought it was particularly interesting that the speaker from the Green Party Keith Locke referred to the problems with Bridgecorp and other finance companies. I think it is important for people who disclose this sort of information to have protection—I believe that. In the course of the research I have been doing on the collapse of finance companies I was given the minutes of a directors’ meeting of a particular finance company. The minutes said quite bluntly that 80 percent of the company’s money was coming from elderly widows and that that was the market it was targeting. The minutes stated that advertising had to be directed at that market and referred to television advertisements that addressed particularly that market. I wondered what the typists and secretaries—those people who typed and read that information—thought about the company they worked for. That company went out and deliberately targeted elderly widows because that was where its money was coming from even though it knew that it might not be able to pay back the money. Those minutes went on to record the fact that there had been discussions with the Securities Commission that were of a minor nature and of no concern to directors. In essence they were a record of the fact that the management had reported to the directors that they did not have to worry about the situation as they had not been caught and that they could go on with what they were doing. 
I totally support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will be voting for it. Just before I sit down I note that Mr Parker boasted about the very many things the Labour Government had done rather than passing this bill. One of the things he did not boast about was purchasing the railways. That was a great thing the Labour Government did! It purchased the railways which probably cost the taxpayers of this country in excess of $1 billion. Thank you.