Foss Craig: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Foss Craig: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:216] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 When I look across to the other side of the Chamber I do indeed see some grumpy white males but not with No. 2 haircuts—not yet. The electorate became sick and tired of hearing a couple of grumpy white males telling them that their taxes could not be cut until those members were 15 points behind in the polls. 
Chris Tremain 
: Then there was the road to Damascus. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: That is right. The independent earner tax credit— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There are 9 billion reasons to be generous. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Did the previous speaker say he was looking forward to Sir Roger Douglas’s maiden speech? 
Chris Tremain 
: He doesn’t get another one. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: He does not get another one. I think he is about 30 years too late. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I was giving the member the benefit of the doubt. He may have been deflowered a couple of times but he is still a maiden in our eyes. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I did make the point to the member that we learnt the other day that Sir Roger Douglas never made a valedictory speech so I guess he had a premonition that he would be back. That is over to him. [ 
Interruption 
] “The Return”—whatever. There are a few speech notes there! 
The independent earner tax credit forms a cornerstone of one of National’s commitments that we are committed to pushing through in the first 100 days of our administration. Yes it will be pushed through before Christmas. I note that the previous member talked about a long night or a long speech— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I see Sir Roger Douglas is preparing to leave. If indeed he does not need to give a maiden speech I wonder whether the member who is on his feet would cede part of his time so that Sir Roger can illuminate us which we would very much like him to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order and it is not helpful to the debate. One of the things that is going to change somewhat is this habit of members raising points of order that are not points of order but some kind of interjection. The tolerance of that is going to diminish as the days go by let me assure that member and anybody else in the Chamber. Points of order will be points of order. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Chair. The independent earner tax credit is a cornerstone of this legislation and of National’s commitment to the electorate. It will be very interesting because it seems obvious that the members on the other side of the Chamber will be voting against this part. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Better believe it. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: We had better believe it. They will be voting against it. They keep talking about the people in the electorate. They are going to rock up to 630000-odd New Zealanders—stand on traffic islands you name it; whatever the previous member said—who have not enjoyed any benefit whatsoever from the huge tax gains made over the last 9 years by the previous administration. They have not benefited one little bit. In fact they have been punished by fiscal drag over those years of 25 percent to 30 percent I guess. They have been dragged through higher prices etc. and have been taken into new tax brackets. The party opposite is going to tell those 630000 people who are eligible for $10 a week from 1 April 2009 moving to $15 a week from 1 April 2010 that they should not share in the tax cuts. 
The Opposition has been playing wedge politics. Its speeches are constantly about other parties in the Chamber and about the make-up of New Zealand. Those members are going to tell 630000 people that they should not share in the tax cuts that the National Party put before the country at the last election. That proposal led to our being resoundingly voted in. The previous administration refused to cut taxes and it refused to recognise this particular demographic who work just as hard as anybody else. They resoundingly voted the previous administration out. This group does not have children. The tax cuts are targeted. Many may have delayed having children. Whatever the reason what business is it of this House as to why people did or did not have children or when they did or did not have children? Goodness gracious! The previous administration tried to control light bulbs and shower heads and now it is trying to control even further what goes on in people’s personal lives. I will not elaborate. 
The members of the previous administration are being true to form. Every single speech made by those members shows their true colours. They will not be more clear and succinct than when they vote against this part whereby 630000 New Zealanders will enjoy $10 a week from 1 April 2009 in these tough economic times in this deep recession which began under the previous administration—prior to it beginning in any other country by the way. Those people will get $15 a week from 1 April 2010. 
It is a start. As I said in my first reading speech it is a start. The tax changes in this bill are part of a greater plan. They send a very special and very succinct message to the electorate. The message that these tax changes send is that Government members value New Zealanders’ hard work. We value the hard work that they do to help make our country great. We value the fact that they are still here in New Zealand and have not joined their friends and family overseas. We value the fact that they are choosing to make a better life for themselves in New Zealand. We value the fact that one day they may have children or maybe they will not—it is none of our business whatsoever. The message this bill sends is that hard work is hard work regardless of family status regardless of whether a person has children. Does someone who works on the factory floor who has two three or four children work harder than someone on the factory floor who does not have children? Yes or no? 
A previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove made some superfluous points about the cut-in at $23999 and argued how arbitrary it was. Yes in a really academic sense he may be right on that small point but we should look at it logically. Is hard work different because of who does it? Should not all New Zealanders enjoy the benefits of a positive taxation commitment from their Government? Should not they all enjoy it regardless of their status? Of course they should. 
I have just one other point—I think the next grumpy old man is ready to speak. Dr Cullen raised some interesting points and I believe he tried to table an amendment earlier. I look forward to it. It obviously is in the same realm as his other accusations about this bill—about pension portability and KiwiSaver—which have been blown out of the water but we will look forward to discussing it in the debate on Part 4. Thank you.