Peck Mark: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21225] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I can assure members opposite that this is not a valedictory speech; that is still to come. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: When is that? 
MARK PECK 
: Well that is up to the Prime Minister really. I am fascinated to learn that the National Party is going to oppose this bill. That surprises me enormously because the package of reform in this bill will return to taxpayers and in particular to the business community $1.5 billion. Let us just put that figure out there again—$1.5 billion will be returned to New Zealand taxpayers. When we have a tax-cut debate in Parliament these days and when we have a Government that is prepared to make changes in the bill to distribute back to taxpayers that amount of money now then it beggars belief that an Opposition party cannot see past its own party political whims—its desire to sloganise the debate—in order to do something to help the business community in this country. 
So what will the Opposition vote against? I see that the member for Clutha-Southland is in the Chamber. One of the things Mr English will vote against today in this first reading stage is the set of rules that will clarify the tax deductibility of re-grassing and fertilising costs associated with farm conversions. He will actually scab on his own farmers. That is what he will do by not supporting this legislation. 
Major changes are not being made by the legislation but incrementally the changes all add up and they will provide a regime in which business in this country will get significant relief. 
I want to go through some of the changes because there are some interesting issues there. We are going to do some very simple things to reduce compliance costs—very simple things indeed in terms of depreciation of assets and things of that ilk which will take the sum of the depreciable assets from $200 to $500. That does not sound like a lot of money but there is a cost to the revenue as a result of that and that cost is directly passed on to the business community. 
We will change the number of tax payment dates for small businesses and will reduce their compliance costs along the way. Why would a National Opposition want to vote against doing that? To me that does not seem to make any particular sense at all. 
We will introduce a new subsidy designed to encourage small business to take advantage of payroll agents. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with providing some assistance for small businesses to be able to employ someone to take that particular cost away from them that obligation away from them so that they can get on with what they do best—which is to run their businesses? 
The one thing that is becoming clear about small businesses in New Zealand at this point is that they are quite dynamic. They are working hard and the issue they have now is not about survival; it is about getting the necessary staff to be able to do the work that needs to be done. That is the issue now so if they are able to relieve themselves of some of the administrative burden by taking on—even in the area of payroll—someone to do that work then that is a good thing. It provides business with the opportunity of getting on and doing some things that need to be done. 
We are doing some work on the fringe benefit tax. It is work that has been overdue for some time and it will provide a direct and tangible benefit to small business in this country. 
The National Party is going to vote against all of this. It just beggars description. I just cannot believe that the National Opposition does not want to support business. But I suppose there is nothing new in that. We on this side of the House when in Opposition had been calling on them in Government for a long period of time to do something about the compliance rates. I see Pansy Wong sitting opposite—we do not hear much from her. When Pansy Wong was in Government she chaired the Commerce Committee that looked at compliance costs and Paul Swain was on that committee. I actually became part of that committee at the end as well. Not one thing that Pansy Wong worked on in that select committee was ever picked up by her Government—not one thing not a brass razoo not a comma not a dot on an “i” nothing. Not one bit of the work that she did was ever picked up. 
Frankly the National Party does not care about small business. It promoted John Key—a person who visited a chicken factory and says he has no compunction about sacking people. He is the silent assassin. He is the man who will grin as he puts the knife across one’s throat. That man is not the nice fluffy man that he is painted to be. He is without doubt one of the most ruthless international finance traders in this country. That is where he comes from. If anybody thinks that his intentions in the finance area will do good things for the people of New Zealand through tax cuts—think again! 
I have seen the odd letter or two since John Key has been on television talking about tax—and by the way he and Don Brash cannot agree. They cannot agree at all about the issue of tax cuts. Don Brash says maybe will have a mini-Budget before Christmas. John Key says: “No no 9 years.” Any workers who think there will be any change for them to have a tax cut as John Key looks at it had better think again. 
We are already delivering millions of dollars to middle and low income families right now through targeted tax changes—right this very minute. What would workers hope to get under about a $1.5 billion tax cut? National is talking about a $1.5 billion tax cut which is not a lot of money when one distributes it across the tax base. Workers on the medium income might get about 6 bucks a week if they are lucky. Well whoopee strike me dead! What will they cut along the way? Well if people vote for tax cuts they should vote to pay for their own policeman. They should vote to pay for their own nurse. They should vote to pay for their own teacher. They should look at having more tolls on the roads because there will be no roading packages. They should vote for their own prison officers and they probably should put fences up around their properties. National members cannot in any way at all provide the sorts of tax cuts they are talking about and maintain services. It simply cannot be done. 
It was fascinating to see them troop into the House after their caucus on Tuesday because they learnt for the first time that the numbers do not add up. When they talk about providing services and making tax cuts they are talking so much cant. We can change some of their billboards. We can change them overnight. In talking about health: with Labour yes one gets health; with National one gets cuts. In talking about education: with Labour one gets education; with National one gets cuts. In talking about roads: with Labour one gets roading; with National one gets cuts. That is the debate. To think that at this very small level now—the issue of dealing with this particular bill that brings in some employer-friendly provisions and some farmer-friendly provisions that a National Opposition will vote against—they will give out $1.5 billion to that sector of our community I cannot believe it. I think National must have had a brainstorm because it just beggars belief.