Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13492] 
Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 to 5 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 What an opportunity this Government has with the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill which is before the Committee. It has the opportunity to show New Zealanders who are struggling at this time that it cares about them and that it can do something to alleviate the stress and strain that is on the family budget at this time. But I do not believe that the Government is listening to the public of New Zealand. Just one month ago in this Chamber I asked the Prime Minister about the effect that a rise in GST would have on some of the basics that our families purchase. I happened to mention Weet-Bix bread and milk. The Prime Minister said that after GST was increased his understanding is that they would become much more affordable when the tax cuts come in on 1 October. I think that shows people that this Government is out of touch with New Zealanders. It has no idea what New Zealanders are facing and it is not listening to what they are telling the Government. 
I think it is all written in this week’s  
National Business Review 
. There is a very interesting story in the  
National Business Review 
 which is headed “John Key’s ‘Captain Panic Pants’”. Well in this very interesting article which I am sure that we will go into in a lot more depth in the weeks to come this was said by an Auckland business person: “We meet John at business breakfasts and other events and he always seems to say what we want to hear—he understands the issue—and he promises to follow-up with his ministers. But there are no staff there taking notes and no evidence that anything ever does get followed up”. I think that summed up the fact that this Government is not prepared to listen to New Zealanders. 
I would like to share with this Committee a letter that the Leader of the Opposition received today which sets out why this Government is not taking account of the charges it is imposing on New Zealanders—GST is just one of them. This letter came from an Auckland businessman who is the owner of a small transport business. He said “I am a father and a husband. I have two children.” He said to Mr Key that he had voted for him and he had talked to many people and tried to persuade them to do the same. “This is because I truly believed”—believed—“that you were the best man to get New Zealand and the people in New Zealand back on track. I continued to do this until 6 weeks ago. Well up to this point you have proved me wrong.” wrote the businessman from Auckland. “You seem to be forgetting that those of us in business have survived the recession”—it is not over yet—“but we have no cash surplus left to pay your extra taxes such as ACC fuel tax RUC GST etc. etc.” 
The businessman went on to say: “This road-user charge increase has effectively sent me broke. If you had left things alone I would have made it out of the other side. Because you are so out of touch what you have created in my business is two more people out of work two families with not enough income and all this before you put up GST causing food prices to go up and just after you made rents go up and your tax shuffle on rental properties.” He went on to say he had to lay off an employee a person who had a family to feed. He said: “I have spoken to many people over the last 6 weeks. You and your party have made everybody’s life harder. It’s almost impossible to pay the bills.” I ask whether we could have had it put any clearer than that businessman has regarding what this Government is doing to thousands of struggling New Zealanders who are trying to bring up a family and pay the bills. 
There is one small thing that this Government could have done in this bill today. It could have given an exemption to the GST increase on rates over the next 9 months. It would have been only a small relief but it would have shown that this Government did listen to people and did care about the plight that they are in at this moment. We hear from the Government that there has been a tough recession and that it understands what people are going through. Well if it understands that then I ask why it will not accept this amendment to the bill. It is a sensible amendment and it would not cost a fortune for it to be implemented but it would have shown in a very small way that this Government does care about people out there. 
You see if members opposite were listening to what is happening and if they went and visited some of their citizens advice bureaus—in fact I understand that in Wellington today none of those members turned up to listen at the citizens advice bureau meeting; it took Labour members to go and listen to what was being said—they would know that people are feeling the pinch. Those members do not want to hear what the citizens advice bureaus are saying because they know that on the ground people are really feeling the pinch. But if they were to go out and listen to budget advisers at the citizens advice bureaus they would be told that thousands and thousands of New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet and that they are desperately worried about the increase in GST in 36 days’ time. They are desperately worried about what that will do to their ability to pay for their kids’ uniforms their children’s shoes and their grocery bill. 
But that does not seem to worry the Government at all. It does not believe that the GST increase will be a major problem. In fact Bill English constantly tells us that people will be better off. Well I have to tell Mr English that that is not how New Zealanders feel. They do not feel better off now and they will not feel better off on 1 October because they are realistic about what is happening to them. People have faced rent increases already and that is before GST goes up and goes on to rates which will be passed on to rents. They have seen their mortgages go up. They have seen prices go up even before the GST increase has been put on. So people are feeling the pinch. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue who is a Minister who knows a bit about taxation why the Government will not accept the amendment from the Labour Opposition which would give people some relief in terms of their rates. It is OK in this bill to give relief to others whom many would consider to be big business interests in the community—those who have finance leases are able to have a transitional period—but not the people who will have to pay the extra 20 percent that will go on with the increase in GST on their rates. Those people will get a rates demand that comes now and they will have to pay the increase right through to July next year even though GST does not start until 1 October. It is only a small matter I say to the Minister but does the Government not think that it might give a good indication to New Zealanders that this Government listens cares and is prepared to entertain other ideas? No it does not do those things. 
Increasingly we are hearing not just from commentators but also from some of what I would call the more conservative newspapers around New Zealand which are desperately worried about what is happening to their citizens. We can look at the  
Taranaki Daily News  
from last week. We would not say that it is a very liberal newspaper—probably the locals think that it is pretty good but it is conservative—yet this is what it said. It stated: “… it would be … terrible if the Government used the findings” of the Working Party on Welfare to dump on the many at-risk members of our society who have lost a job through no fault of their own and are paying the price for the greed of others.” I do not think that we could have said that better. Those people are paying the price for the greed of others. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their opportunities. They can see no plan from the Government in this legislation or in anything else that we have seen put before this House that will see a single job created for them. They can see nothing that will give them a leg up rather than the kick in the backside that is all that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has promised them. 
We know that a newspaper as conservative as the  
Taranaki Daily News  
recognises that this Government is being punitive towards hard-working Kiwis who have lost their jobs and we know that businesses have closed—like that of the businessman who owns his own transport business and who has had to lay people off because of the charges imposed by this Government. National railed against road-user charges when it was in Opposition. Do members remember the protests on road-user charges under Labour? Oh yes that was a terrible thing then even though there had not been an increase in road-user charges since the 1980s. But this time when this Government has put one on it is OK and people were told not to worry about it even though it is driving a company out of business. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Now we know what Labour’s policy is: cancel tax cuts and give an exemption for GST on rates. That is the policy. Well I invite Mrs King and Mr Goff to go out to Mana in the by-election and campaign on that—cancel the tax cuts but provide an exemption for GST on rates. Let us see how popular that is. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Calm down man—calm down “Mr Angry”. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I think that the former member for Otaki who has lost that seat twice would know what the people in that part of New Zealand will say to that policy. 
Hon Member 
: He’s on a hat trick. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He is on a hat trick. That is why when we are talking about issues to do with KiwiSaver GST and tax Labour has no credibility. Well it is just politically stupid. It is just a stupid policy. There is nothing to be said for it. 
Where is the wisdom in that policy? From an economic point of view it is nuts to cancel the tax cuts and provide exemptions for one little part of people’s expenditure. It would make almost everyone in New Zealand worse off and that is where Labour’s thinking is up to. It would make almost everyone in New Zealand worse off as they go into Christmas. It would be telling them: “Sorry we’ve cancelled your tax cuts but you’ve got a GST exemption on rates.” The Labour backbenchers must shudder when they see so-called experienced people like Mrs King and “Dazza” coming up with dazzling policies like that. It makes no sense for the economy and absolutely no sense for the people of the Mana electorate. Let us make the by-election in Mana if there is one a referendum on that policy. That is how confident we are that when New Zealanders see the increase in GST alongside their tax cuts they will see that this is the right direction for the economy and is beneficial for their households. 
When Labour members are getting around and talking about GST they need to look at themselves in the mirror. When Labour members read the letter from the man in Auckland they should look at themselves in the mirror. The previous speaker mentioned accident compensation charges and a former Minister for ACC Ruth Dyson is sitting here. The previous Government cost the Accident Compensation Corporation billions of dollars. Rehabilitation rates went backwards entitlements exploded and levies were held too low. We have had to clean up that mess and what a mess it was. When anyone says anything to me about increases in accident compensation levies I just tell them what a good job we have done of turning them round. If they have a complaint they should send it to the Labour Party because the previous Labour Government wrecked accident compensation with politics and incompetence. One of the effects is that accident compensation levies have gone up for some businesses. Labour has been against every measure we have taken to contain accident compensation rises; Labour has opposed them. Labour is in favour of higher accident compensation levies because it wants to expand entitlements further and for us to continue to run the scheme as an incompetent monopoly as Labour did. Labour is in favour of higher accident compensation levies as well as getting rid of the income tax cuts. 
I have a question: can the next speaker get up and tell us whether Labour supports the tax cuts on 1 October? That is what we want to know. We want to know what Labour thinks about this bill and we want to know what it thinks about the tax cuts on 1 October. The way Labour is campaigning on GST it gives us the sense that there are no tax cuts. Whenever Labour members talk about the impact on households they talk only about GST. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party most certainly does not support 35 percent of the income tax cuts going to the top 5 percent of New Zealand’s income earners. We are clear about that on the record. I ask how Mr English can think it is a good idea when he is running a deficit to give income tax cuts of which 35 percent goes to the top 5 percent of income earners. It is poor economics. It will give us a greater deficit as a consequence and a more unequal society which is also bad. 
In respect of the misrepresentation by Mr English of the Hon Annette King’s comments the record has to be set straight. Never has Annette King suggested that GST should come off all rates. All Mrs King raised was the very good idea that if we are to give some relief to the increase in GST that is coming on 1 October for people who have 5-year financial leases why do we not give some interim relief during the first year for rates? People who can afford to pay those rates for the full year before 1 October—that is wealthy people—will get that relief. They will not pay the increase in GST on this year’s rates but people who cannot afford to pay all of their rates for the full year before 1 October will not get that relief. They will pay the increased rate of GST on the balance of their rates. 
The Labour Party amendment is on the floor of the House and National members could vote for it if they had the gumption to see that this detail would give that same relief from the increase in GST for this year. It does not apply to all GST; it applies just to the increase in GST on rates for the balance of the year. That is what the amendment from the Labour Party says. It does not suggest as Mr English tried to tell the Committee in misrepresenting the amendment that all GST should be relieved from rates. Once again it shows how desperate the National Government is to misrepresent Labour Party policy. 
It is interesting that Mr English is the same man who says that National inherited a bad state of affairs from the previous Government when in fact National inherited some of the lowest rates of net Government debt in the world—it had gone down to zero—and gross Government debt had come down from 35 percent of GDP to 17 percent of GDP under the previous Government. National did not inherit a bad fiscal position; it inherited a good one. The position would have been far worse had Mr English been in charge of the Treasury benches during that period of Government because he opposed every Budget surplus that we ran. We used those surpluses to reduce Government debt and to start the savings into the Cullen fund. Instead Mr English said that there should have been unaffordable tax cuts. If New Zealand had done that we would have been closer to the position of Portugal the United Kingdom and Spain all of which have high Government debt and therefore problems that this country does not face. 
This bill is a lost opportunity in respect of big things like savings. The Government through this bill could have reinstated KiwiSaver and proper savings towards the Cullen fund. This bill does not do that. The Government has set up a Savings Working Group because at long last it has acknowledged that one of the problems in New Zealand is our savings level. That is one of the big differences between New Zealand compared with Australia. We in Labour have been saying that for years. It is why we started Government savings through the Cullen fund and the surpluses we ran. It is why we started incentivising private savings via KiwiSaver. They are both measures that the National Government has undermined just as it undermined the Kirk savings scheme and Mr Peters’ efforts in the late 1990s to introduce compulsory savings. The Government has no coherent plan to bridge the wage gap with Australia. This bill does nothing substantial to bridge that wage gap. It continues to grow ever wider despite the protestations by National to the contrary. 
Once again I reinforce the point that Annette King made. There is one small thing that can be done for Kiwis who at present are pushed on their cost of living in respect of the extra GST—not all GST—that is coming on their rates for the balance of this year. Let us give those people who cannot afford to pay all of their rates for this year by 1 October the same relief from the increase in GST that is given to those people who have already paid their rates. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 156 and 157 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The amendment in the name of David Garrett has been withdrawn. The amendment in the name of Stuart Nash which seeks to insert a new clause 81B is out of order because it does not meet the 24-hour rule under Standing Order 320(1). 
Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time 
. We have heard a lot over the last few hours about the contents of the bill as introduced and reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee; and one or two other things besides. The main feature of the bill is that it allows New Zealanders who return home permanently from Australia to bring with them the compulsory superannuation contributions they have made while working in Australia. This will include New Zealanders who have already returned from working in Australia and who will be able to retrieve their compulsory contributions and continue to save for their retirement through KiwiSaver. In the same way the reciprocal arrangement that the bill introduces or gives support to will allow KiwiSaver members who move to Australia to transfer all their savings in that scheme to an Australian-complying superannuation scheme including contributions from the Crown and any member tax credits. 
These are very positive developments for all concerned. For New Zealanders who live in Australia it can make the decision to return home easier knowing that they can bring their compulsory superannuation contributions with them and continue to build up their retirement savings. From the Government’s point of view it recognises the benefits that a skilled mobile labour force can bring to both countries. Once these measures pass through our own legislative process we look forward to Australia passing its legislation although the timing of that may have become a little bit more ambiguous given the turn of recent events in that country. Perhaps we should say we look forward to Australia having a Government first and then being able to introduce and pass the relevant legislation. 
The remainder of the bill as reported back to the House sets the annual tax rates for 2010-11 and takes into account the significant reduction to personal income tax rates that come into effect on 1 October this year. It also introduces a number of technical and remedial measures to improve the way the tax rules work and to reduce compliance costs for taxpayers. For example the KiwiSaver enrolment rules for those under 18 years of age are being clarified to give young people and guardians greater certainty about their obligations under the scheme. Similarly the rules around gifting amenities and artwork to local or central government now make it clear that these items are exempt from gift duty. Later this year the Government will be looking towards repealing gift duty altogether if concerns about creditor protection and social assistance targeting can be addressed. But in the meantime the provisions in this bill will give greater certainty to people who wish to gift items for public benefit. 
The bill now incorporates two recently tabled Supplementary Order Papers 156 and 157 which cover the GST transitional issues for 1 October 2010 and a number of other technical changes. The GST transitional measures focus on contracts that span 1 October. Certain successive supplies such as insurance finance leases and lay-by contracts that span the 1 October date are now able to continue at the 12.5 percent GST rate to reduce compliance costs. There is also a range of measures to better align the GST time-of-supply rules with business practices. A further provision extends the remission of late-payment penalties and the associated interest for GST returns to cover the period immediately before 1 October. 
Other measures in those Supplementary Order Papers include measures to assist bank liquidity to remove overreach from what are colloquially known as the “imputation credit shopping rules” and changes to the tax treatment of certain optional convertible notes to ensure they are not inappropriately taxed by a change in the tax rules. A number of arrangements involving these notes are subject to a dispute between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue Department and as a result we have been very careful with this amending legislation so as not to prejudice these particular disputes as they go through due process. The remaining matters in the Supplementary Order Papers are more detailed and generally remedial in nature. Although I concede that the use of Supplementary Order Papers in this fashion is not ideal all of the items in these particular Supplementary Order Papers are time-sensitive and are either taxpayer friendly or remedial in nature. 
Finally in bringing the bill to its third reading may I place on record my thanks to the organisations and the individuals who have made submissions on the bill; to the officials who have developed the policy and worked their way through it with us as it has gone through its stages since its introduction last November; to the drafters of the bill who shaped the policy into the legislation we now have before us; and to the Finance and Expenditure Committee which scrutinised the measures in the bill to achieve their purpose clearly and accurately and which as usual has done a particularly good job in that regard. With those few comments it is now my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition rises to support in principle the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill and to acknowledge the need for a range of remedial measures and changes driven by the rush to implement the increase to GST. Before going through the substantive matters in the bill and summarising the discussion during the Committee stage debate may I join the Minister of Revenue in acknowledging the work of officials his staff the Finance and Expenditure Committee and its chairman and staff as well. A great deal of work has gone into this bill under a very compressed time frame. I should say perhaps that it has not been the easiest of processes. The Minister has acknowledged that it has not been ideal and I cannot blame officials for that because they like the rest of us saw the Prime Minister on television saying that he would not raise GST and no doubt they were as surprised as we were when the Government did a U-turn and decided to do that. That has left Minister Dunne hitherto known as the “Minister for Remedial Measures” to bring to the House 28 pages of Supplementary Order Papers that have not had the benefit of a select committee process let alone the benefit of the normal generic tax policy process. It would be my prediction and that of the Labour Opposition that we will be “remediate-ing” the remedials before the 3-year triennium is out. 
The debate at the Committee stage was disappointing from the point of view of the Labour Opposition: Government members like the chief whip Mr Tremain rather than engaging on the substance of the issues seemed determined to use it as an opportunity to spread misinformation about Labour’s record. For example he alleged in debate that the previous Government had not reduced Government debt as a percentage of GDP and I ask him which Government he was referring to because the outgoing Labour Government reduced gross debt as a percent of GDP from 35 percent to 17 percent. We cut it in half and reduced net debt including the assets of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to zero making New Zealand a net-creditor nation for the first time in over a century. That was quite an achievement I would have thought. At the same time in particular we achieved the world’s lowest unemployment and the longest post-war economic expansion. Ask any New Zealander who is waiting for the so-called aggressive recovery. My goodness how good do those golden days seem now! Then of course we have had to endure the misrepresentations from the Minister of Finance who talked about a so-called 8.7 percent real increase in post-tax income under this Government in which he conveniently included the benefit of tax cuts brought down by the previous Labour Government in its 2008 Budget which he voted against. So when is a policy not a policy? It is when one votes against the other team’s policy and then includes it in one’s own total. Further in his speech at the end of the Committee stage Mr English misrepresented the Labour amendment which of course does not remove all GST from rates and was never intended to do that. It is a small token of recognition that people who are paying GST on rates should not retrospectively face a higher rates bill during the year of transition and thereby this amendment defers the increase for this year as is appropriate. 
It is inevitable and proper that in the debate on a bill that seeks to impose a higher goods and services tax on all New Zealanders the debate should turn to the substance of why that is happening. The stark contrast between this Government and the Opposition has been borne out. The Government is ignoring the real world costs for real Kiwis. It is ignoring the needs of real households that simply cannot afford another $20 $30 or $40 a week because they cannot pay the bills. They cannot pay their power bills in the winter. They cannot pay their rents. They are sharing houses. They are living in garages. Those people do not need a lecture about saving more spending less or being imprudent because they are doing the very best they can just to survive. If there was ever a statement that showed that the Government was out of touch it was from our colleague Mr Gilmore who said that $20 did not matter. Well it matters to too many of our constituents not to mention the real businesses—the ones that are facing the risk the cost and the hassle of having to change all their prices and are bearing the risk of the GST flow-through in the middle of the year. They have been crying out nay pleading for these 28 pages of Supplementary Order Papers that protect a few of them from unintended consequences. But if it is good enough for the Government to bring in remedial Supplementary Order Papers that protect financiers from the cost of finance leases I ask why it was not good enough to protect ratepayers from retrospective increases in rates. I ask why it took the Labour Opposition to protect those Kiwi householders. I commend my colleague Stuart Nash for his far-sighted amendment which is but a small token of the fact that Labour is in touch with heartland New Zealand and it has taken only 2 years for the National Government to get out of touch. 
The same arrogance was shown in the savings component of this bill. The Government is supporting an ACT Supplementary Order Paper—and so are we; it is OK as far as it goes—that introduces more choice in KiwiSaver by allowing individuals to contribute at a higher rate. But it is interesting that in the week that the Government has finally lurched towards setting up a committee to advise it on savings after 9 years in Opposition 2 years in Government two Budgets and not a single new idea of its own there is no mention of employer contributions. The Minister of Finance has specifically ruled out any net increase in Government contributions because it has to be “fiscally neutral”. That means I say to members and New Zealanders that Kiwis will pay for all their own savings. But I ask why they would do that if they are already stretched. The answer is because the Government intends to compel them to. The Government will not provide them with the ability to save through higher wages nor with incentives through a balanced set of contributions by employers and the Crown nor with better tools like easy save savings options; the Government will simply force them. Well the full flowering of the nanny State one might say is the granny State. When nanny State meets savings and superannuation it becomes the granny State and it is apparently here to stay. 
New Zealanders all around the country are asking why they voted for National again. They have already forgotten. They thought that National was going to give them everything they enjoyed under Labour that National would maintain social benefits that National would catch us up with Australia and that they could have everything they liked under Labour and with a nice smiley man to help them do it. His name is “Captain Panic Pants” according to the  
National Business Review 
. “Captain Panic Pants” is a man who has poll-driven his Government to a standstill. The  
National Business Review 
 is no friend in particular it might be said of Labour. We have come to accept over time the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from that august journal. But when the  
National Business Review 
 amongst thousands of New Zealand business people says that the Government has not just lost its bottle but that it has never even found the bottle then I ask what the game plan is to get this Government out of the stagnant pool and to stop it from losing its way. I ask where the game plan is to bring real jobs real incomes and real hope to real Kiwis. Unfortunately necessary and appropriate as this bill is the game plan is clearly not in this bill. There is nothing here to sweeten savings for Kiwis. There is nothing here to bring relief for higher GST. The bottom line is that in 2011 5.9 percent inflation will eat away any gain people thought they had. This Government said that people would have 20 bucks a week in their pockets when they turned up at Countdown. Yes but they will not be able to pay for the same trolley load of groceries they will be 30 bucks short at the end because the price of everything in the trolley just like the price of rents rates power and everything else will have gone up by 2.5 percent on GST and 5.9 percent inflation and ordinary Kiwis will be worse off until at least 2014. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 We are in the third reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill and I acknowledge the Minister of Revenue for the work he has done to get the bill to this stage. It has been a somewhat wide-ranging debate. 
I will make a couple of points. Speakers on the other side of the House keeping talking about a 28-page Supplementary Order Paper. Well like the pamphlet that they gave out that miscalculated the GST increase Supplementary Order Paper 105 has five pages Supplementary Order Paper 156 has 15 pages and Supplementary Order Paper 157 in the name of the Minister has 13 pages. Not one of them is 28 pages long. Those Supplementary Order Papers do not even add up to 28 pages. Maybe the devil is in the detail. Once again it just proves that members on the other side do not really have a grasp on the core issue at all. 
The previous speaker the Hon David Cunliffe also spoke about National voting against a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of one of the members. If Mr Cunliffe was paying attention he would note that that Supplementary Order Paper never even came to the vote. But perhaps I am being a bit picky. 
When Mr Cunliffe started speaking he conveniently forgot as he often does about the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in 2008 which sadly revealed for our economy the decade of deficits a terrible growing debt the revelations in accident compensation and the revaluation of KiwiRail. You name it it was there. He also touched on the growth in real wages under this Government of 8.7 percent. He is quite right in that some tax changes were announced in the dying days of the previous administration. As we all know and the records will show they were poll-driven and when National announced its tax plan after 9 years of waiting suddenly Dr Cullen and the previous Government found themselves able to give out income tax cuts. 
Very quickly I say that the previous speaker also talked a lot about GST. He said that there was nothing in this legislation about GST or administration and he is quite right. Very little about GST is in this legislation because this is the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. GST provisions are in another bill. There is a lot in this legislation to deal with GST because this legislation includes the new tax schedules under which we will see the income tax cuts announced by this Government in the Budget. They kick in on 1 October this year and will see about two-thirds of New Zealanders face a highest marginal income tax rate of 17.5 percent which is half of what it was 3 years ago. 
I acknowledge other speakers and assistants and I commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee members and officials for getting the bill through the Committee stage in spite of the rhetoric over the last few hours. I acknowledge that Opposition members are voting for the bill. Sure they have some reservations and some political points to make but overall good tax policy is coming through here. I thought the process was pretty good. 
I will quickly touch on something that I did not really have a chance to talk about in the in-depth select committee deliberations. I congratulate the committee the officials and the private sector advisers involved in the branch equivalent tax account debits changes. In terms of the bill that came into the House initially and was referred to the select committee the committee’s work brought a lot of fairness and clarity. Some quite substantial numbers are involved as far as obligation potential losses and/or gains for the taxpayer and some entities are concerned and we see in the commentary on the bill that we start to touch on those particular issues. I thought this was a great example of the committee’s cross-party work towards good tax policy. 
I have one final point. I know that a Green member will speak after me but in an earlier speech the co-leader of the Greens Mr Norman talked about the illegal behaviour of banks being prosecuted for tax issues etc. I do not think that the Taranaki savings bank was prosecuted by anyone. Was Southland Savings Bank? I do not think so. My point is that members should be very very careful with the generic terms they use when they are talking about matters that have been before the courts. Members need to get their facts right. I know what the member was trying to say but it would not take much more for him to say that rather than use the terms he is using which are somewhat confusing and do not show this House in a good light. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Foss. I think members should say what they actually mean. I say to Mr Foss that he has made a very good point and that when John Key was the Leader of the Opposition and he stood up on television and told New Zealanders that National would not raise GST he should have meant it. He said: “National will not raise GST” but it did. So I challenge Mr Foss to go and talk to Mr Key and give exactly the same advice to Mr Key—that he should say what he means. 
I rise in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill—it is a bit of a mouthful—in its third reading. I also support Supplementary Order Paper 157 put forward by Peter Dunne which deals with major fixes to the increased GST regime that is about to be implemented on 1 October. I also support Supplementary Order Paper 158 put forward by David Garrett—I never thought I would say that—which adds to the available rates that can be chosen by a worker with regard to KiwiSaver contributions. However I would like to make three points in my speech on this bill. The first is that Labour did not support an increase in GST. The second point is that this legislation is necessary and proper. The third point is that the implementation of the GST increase has turned into an absolute shambles. 
I want to clarify one point in this House and it comes down to my first point. Even though Mr Dunne’s large Supplementary Order Paper is about remedial action in relation to the GST increase that will take place on 1 October this year we support his Supplementary Order Paper because it is necessary in order to get this dreadful increase to a stage where it does not bring down the whole economy even if it will bring down the Government. Labour did not support the increase in GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent. Like the majority of New Zealanders Labour has never agreed with an increase in GST and we would never vote for legislation that was so regressive and so penalised the majority of good hard-working New Zealanders that it gave a tax cut from which 33 percent went to only 5 percent of taxpayers. Labour supports robust legislation that helps New Zealanders to improve business efficiency. 
I also introduced an amendment in the Committee stage. It would have gone just a little way towards alleviating the financial stress imposed by the increase in GST. The amendment would have ensured that GST on rates was held at 12.5 percent for the remainder of the financial year. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know that the member wants to debate and mention an amendment but that amendment was ruled out of order. I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 117/4 which states that a member cannot refer to an amendment that has been ruled out of order in the Committee stage. I know the member proposed the amendment and I am happy for him to mention it but he cannot use it as the substantive basis of his speech. I am happy that the member mentioned it but he must talk about other things: about what the Committee decided on which now forms the basis of the third reading—the bill as it will become the Act. I now invite the member to continue. 
STUART NASH 
: One thing that disappoints me about the whole process is that the one amendment that Labour put forward—the only one; we supported two more Supplementary Order Papers—was turned down. That amendment would have alleviated in just a little way some of the harm felt by taxpayers who will really find it tough when GST increases on 1 October. We did not ask for much—just one amendment. But it was voted down. The thing that really surprises me about that is that my amendment was completely in line with the principles and practices that the other amendments were operating under. 
The major item in this bill allows New Zealanders who are returning home from Australia to bring their retirement savings with them. This is a sensible arrangement. We have been told there is potentially $16.6 billion in lost contributions from New Zealanders who are working in Australia which under this scheme could come back to New Zealand. Although this bill makes it easier for superannuitants to return home and bring their savings home I would suggest that the Government’s complete lack of a plan for this country may in fact be a larger incentive to stay away. But people will have to wait only another 18 months and then we will welcome them home. There will be a plan; they will see it very soon. 
The portability arrangements will allow citizens who have retirement savings in both New Zealand and Australia to consolidate them in one account in their current country of residence. These amendments cover only the transfer of retirement savings between our KiwiSaver scheme and an Australian complying superannuation fund that is regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. A person must permanently emigrate to Australia and supply proof of his or her emigration to the provider. To protect the value of savings transfers of savings between New Zealand and Australia will be exempt from any entry or exit taxes. 
The current inability of individuals to streamline and consolidate their personal retirement savings accounts is a real problem we understand to the trans-Tasman labour markets. The current costs undermine the effectiveness of policies aimed at improving retirement standards of living. Under the status quo individuals may transfer their KiwiSaver savings to Australia upon permanent emigration but Australian-compliant superannuation funds may not be transferred to New Zealand. So as mentioned this may well potentially unlock $16.6 billion worth of savings. But even if it is a fraction of that it will certainly be worth doing. 
My second point relates to Peter Dunne’s Supplementary Order Paper which is proof that the whole GST increase is an absolute shambles. Ernst and Young a major accountancy firm stated in a press release that “As we face the harsh reality of the 1 October GST increase to 15 percent many are realising this is not a modest increase and the issues are actually more complex that anyone first imagined.” This is a call of frustration not from the Labour Party but from a major accountancy company involved in interpreting tax legislation. The GST increase is a shambles and I wonder aloud how many more remedial matters bills and Supplementary Order Papers we will see coming before the House before this whole mess is tidied up. I am picking that there will be many. All that I can ask Mr Dunne is why this shambles was not tidied up before this bill even came to the House. If he had consulted before the GST legislation came to this House—if he had talked to the business community and asked whether businesses had any problems and if he had talked to the community—then this mess would not be in front of us now. In fact if he had consulted GST would not be going up at all. That is why I introduced my amendment asking the Minister to consider Kiwi families before the GST increase is implemented. 
The Minister of Revenue is in charge of the shambles. He also set up the Families Commission and I wonder what sorts of families he believes that the increase in GST will benefit—perhaps families earning over $150000 a year or over $1 million a year. Those families are about to get a nice little earner with this tax cut. However they are not the norm. In Napier the median wage is only $30000 a year and those people are about to get around $3 a week extra. The GST increase will ensure that the struggle gets worse for those families. Their budgets will be stretched and their feelings of disenfranchisement will be increased. 
In conclusion this bill is a mixture of the good and the necessary. The good for example is the trans-Tasman portability legislation; the necessary is what is required to tidy up the mess that is the GST increase. I have outlined why the Labour Party supports this bill and why this bill is important. Our support is in no way at all an endorsement of the increase in GST. We do not support an increase in GST. We were astonished—and quite frankly disgusted—when the Prime Minister introduced legislation to increase the GST rate after telling all New Zealanders that “National will not increase GST”. And he did. That is simply not fair. Thank you. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a call in the debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. I speak as deputy leader of the ACT Party. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. 
The last comments we heard from the Labour speaker Stuart Nash were that he was astonished and disgusted that the Government increased GST. 
Stuart Nash 
: No that Mr Key said he would not and he did. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: He said he would not and he did? Mr Nash is astonished and disgusted that GST has increased. 
I absolutely have to laugh whenever I hear Labour members talk about electricity cost rises and people struggling. Every single member of the Labour Party knows that had Labour been re-elected at the last election we would have had Labour’s emissions trading scheme and electricity prices would have risen by 10 percent. 
Hon Member 
: Not that old theme again. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: What do we get from Ruth Dyson? She said: “Not that again.” I remind Ruth Dyson and every single member of the Labour Party—and I will continue to remind every single member of the Labour Party and every New Zealander—that prior to the last election Labour passed an emissions trading scheme— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I mentioned in a previous intervention that in a third reading speech one can refer only to what is actually in the bill. I remind members of Speaker’s Ruling 117/4 and I will quote so it is very clear about what I said earlier: “On the third reading of a bill a member cannot discuss—(1) Any matter not included in the clauses of the bill; (2) a clause that was ruled out of order by the Speaker; (3) the merits of an amendment proposed by the member and ruled out of order in committee;”—and that was the case with Mr Nash. I bring the member back to the substance and purpose of the bill which is very clear. Material in passing can be mentioned but it cannot form the substantive part of the debate. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I was not intending my call to be a long one. 
I draw members’ attention to the commentary on the bill which sets out the number of changes being made to the emissions trading scheme in this bill. My understanding is that those provisions still apply. 
The point I wanted to make is that I hear the debate from the Labour members about people struggling under rising electricity prices but no one in this House and no New Zealander should be in any doubt whatsoever that if the emissions trading scheme had not been amended rather than a 5 percent increase in electricity prices we would have had a 10 percent increase. That is a fact. The real issue is why electricity prices are rising at all. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I am taking just a short call to advise that the Maori Party will be supporting this bill. Kia ora tatou. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call—probably a little bit longer than the Maori Party call—about the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s taken longer than Hone’s speech. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is longer is it not? Basically this legislation opens up the way for New Zealanders returning home to bring their retirement savings with them. That portability of retirement savings between New Zealand and Australia has been a longstanding problem; we are addressing it now so that New Zealanders will find it easier to return home and will find that they can actually bring those savings with them and enjoy them in their time in New Zealand. 
The bill is part of the plan for the economic growth of New Zealand but it is also part of making it easier for New Zealanders to come home to make New Zealand their future. This bill is important for those reasons and for many others. The remedial matters provisions also deal with KiwiSaver and other areas. We look forward to the bill passing through this House and the success that it will bring as New Zealanders come home under rules that accommodate their return. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in the third reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. One of the key elements of this bill—perhaps the major component—relates to the way the bill opens up for New Zealanders who have saved in Australia under that country’s excellent superannuation regime to be able to come back to New Zealand with their nest egg use it to bring capital back into this country and ensure they have a long and secure retirement on the basis of the Australian superannuation scheme. 
I note the way that scheme has come together to provide the capacity for New Zealanders to now come back home with a very nice golden nest egg. That relates to the fact that the Australian Government over 20 years ago decided to put in place a compulsory superannuation scheme. It is funded by a 9 percent employer contribution. Brian Gaynor in the  
New Zealand Herald  
recently commented on the benefits to Australia of that scheme. He said that over the last 10 years “Australia’s total superannuation assets have risen nearly threefold from A$484 billion to A$1257 billion”. That means that New Zealanders who are returning home and bringing their superannuation—as this trans-Tasman portability legislation provides for—will be able to return with an average of around A$56000. The average Australian has been able to generate A$56000 in savings through the scheme that their Government in its wisdom has put in place. 
The good thing about superannuation in Australia is that it has transcended party politics. The scheme was put in place by the Hawke-Keating Government was accepted by the John Howard Government and of course has endured to whichever Government will take shape in Australia over the next few days and weeks. That is a very important thing. Superannuation has to be durable. The tragedy in this country is that the Labour Government has three times worked to try to provide a platform for enduring savings and three times a National Government has knocked it around. The first time was famously with the Kirk-Rowling scheme in 1975 which was abolished by the Muldoon Government and replaced by a “pay as you go” pension scheme funded by the taxpayer. Brian Gaynor in his article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
comments that “This was the worst economic decision by any New Zealand government in the past 50 years”. That is the legacy of a National Government. That is why many New Zealanders went to Australia: because they lost their capacity to save properly in a scheme encouraged fostered and supported by a sensible Government policy arrangement. 
So now New Zealanders under this bill are able to bring their savings back securely and safely to the order of an average savings regime of $56000. But do members know what the savings regime for New Zealanders means? The average savings of New Zealanders are just 10 percent of the average savings of Australian workers. Yes there is a wage gap and we know that it is growing under this Government but none the less we have a factor of 10 in the difference between the average superannuation savings of New Zealanders and Australians or New Zealanders resident in Australia who are now under the sensible provisions of this bill able to bring back their superannuation nest egg to New Zealand to allow them to have a long and secure retirement based on that sensible savings regime. Our savings are about 10 percent of the amount of their savings. 
One of the other things about this bill is its connections to KiwiSaver. Those New Zealanders who have been resident in Australia are able to bring back their money and park it in KiwiSaver which is an excellent scheme introduced under the last Labour Government. I go back to my original comments about the need for durability—the need to not play party politics with superannuation. One of the great tragedies—and I think in future commentators like Brian Gaynor may note this—is that under this Government in the first flush of tax cuts most of the money went to the top third of income earners and that in fact the top 3 percent of earners got about a third of the money from the first round of National Government tax cuts. 
How did National fund those tax cuts? It funded them by cutting the KiwiSaver contribution from a 4 percent employer contribution back to a 2 percent employer contribution. But where are we now? In the last few days the Prime Minister has announced that we need to start looking at a compulsory savings option. So where were we less than 2 years ago? We were cutting a KiwiSaver regime that was giving a million New Zealanders the capacity to start building towards the sort of savings regime that under this bill New Zealanders can bring back to this country—those Australian-sourced nest eggs. We were en route to creating our own savings regime which would have allowed New Zealanders to build their own security in retirement but what did the National Government do? It cut that savings regime in half in a venal way simply to guarantee itself some capacity to win the last election. We know that the funding was cut and that 30 percent of it went to the top 3 percent of tax earners. It was payback time for the National Party’s wealthy mates at the cost of working New Zealanders and their efforts to secure for themselves some form of security in retirement which the KiwiSaver scheme was providing. It was cut in half in a cynical exploitative way by the National Party in Opposition when it was seeking the Treasury benches. 
Here we are less than 2 years later scrambling around trying to forge a new consensus on superannuation and savings. But even as that starts to take effect even before the task force has been formed we had the Minister of Finance say today on  
Morning Report 
: “Oh no we are not going to have any net increase in Government contribution to this new platform for security and superannuation and saving for New Zealanders. That’s off the agenda.” So we have had first cuts to KiwiSaver and second an admission that we need to start saving for ourselves so that we are not wholly dependent on New Zealanders going to Australia to lift our savings regime. Under this bill those New Zealanders are able to bring their savings back so that they can retire comfortably and securely in New Zealand. We now have a Government that is precluding some of the sensible options that at the very least need to be considered if we are to have any prospect whatsoever of an enduring superannuation and savings regime for this country. This Government stands indicted on those points. 
It was interesting to note the comments in a recent  
Trans Tasman 
 about why that has happened. Why has the Prime Minister indicated that we will now have a task force to look at compulsory superannuation? Here is what  
Trans Tasman 
 had to say: “John Key sniffs a shift in opinion since 92 percent of voters rejected compulsory superannuation at a referendum in 1997 and a growing public awareness of the implications of living longer. But his case for compulsory saving is not yet compelling enough for hard decisions. The Government will wait until it considers recommendations from a panel of experts who will examine all the issues around retirement savings.” 
Well yes  
Trans Tasman 
 is right. The Prime Minister has sniffed a change in a public opinion. It is a change in public opinion that reflects the fact that a million New Zealanders have voted with their feet for KiwiSaver. They have opted into the scheme and acknowledged the value of having a scheme that allows an employee contribution yes; an employer contribution yes; and a Government contribution yes. It is a three-legged stool that gives a superannuation scheme some prospect of endurance of stability of being able to be drawn on into the future. But why would the Minister of Finance within days of the Prime Minister indicating that he wants to see a regime on compulsory superannuation given a look over by a task force effectively undermine that and say: “Well you can have that review all right but don’t think there will be any prospect of Government contribution to superannuation and savings. Don’t even think about that.”? Why would that be? Why would he want to pull one of the three legs away from the only way in which we can build an enduring sustainable superannuation scheme that can give New Zealanders the sorts of savings in retirement that this bill provides for? This bill provides for New Zealanders who have opted to spend a portion of their working lives in Australia and who have built up nest eggs 10 times what this nation is able to generate by way of savings. We have a Government with a track record in history that dates back more than 30 years which is that it will play politics on savings. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 One would think from listening to the rhetoric from the member Brendon Burns that the Labour Party was not supporting the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill but it is. This is a great bill in terms of putting in place some incentives for those people who have come home since the election to bring their savings that have been in Australia to New Zealand. Thousands of people have decided they want to come to New Zealand under a John Key - led Government. This bill is a little step in the right direction to help enhance that for those people and we think it is a neat thing. 
I will touch on some of the rhetoric from Labour members. They read out a press statement espousing the views of Ernst and Young. I used to work at Ernst and Young. Those views were not the views of Ernst and Young; they were the views of one partner within Ernst and Young. There is a disclaimer at the bottom that says they are not the views of Ernst and Young they are the views of Jo Doolan. I am surprised that that was not mentioned. 
This bill takes some wonderful steps in the right direction. The Minister of Revenue talked about the great provisions in relation to gift duty. People who donate artworks to local authorities can do so free of gift duty and that is a good thing. It is a good thing for wealthy people who want to donate bits of valuable artwork to local authorities because the paperwork and the taxation will be less and that is a step in the right direction. 
The other good thing we talked about was the imputation credit pooling that has been put in place in Supplementary Order Paper 157. That was a good Supplementary Order Paper it was put forward and voted on and I am very supportive of it because it helps some of the financial sector restructuring that is necessary post the recession. Those are all good steps in the right direction. 
Finally I will touch on one thing that seems to be the mantra from Opposition members in relation to KiwiSaver. The Minister of Finance talked about this earlier. KiwiSaver has not actually increased national savings. All that it has led to is a switch in the mixture of national savings. This bill has nothing to do with that. It will help our national savings to increase in terms of the volume of investment that comes from Australia into New Zealand and that has to be a good thing to help our economy grow a little bit better. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora no tatou. Naturally we support the third reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. I would like to acknowledge the new Minister in the House Mr Boscawen. I have not had the chance to personally or professionally acknowledge his elevation. Although there is an adversarial spirit in our politics in the context of our overall parliamentary mission I wish him good luck and I look forward to many a partisan bout. Very few of us make the status of being Ministers and I acknowledge his new status. 
Paul Quinn 
: Did you make him one? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Rest assured I say to Mr Quinn those words will not be wasted on him. I mean no personal disrespect but as befits this House the truth must emerge. In that way I say that Mr Quinn may achieve one of three things but the dizzy height that Mr Boscawen’s current status represents and occasionally his— 
Paul Quinn 
: That assumes I want to. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The more the member talks the more I am reminded of  
The Muppets 
. An episode of  
The Muppets  
was based on  
The Wizard of Oz 
 and there were three characters: one was looking for his brain one was looking for his heart and the other was looking for his courage. All of those three issues are combined and embodied in one figure—that member. 
I will come back to the bill. Other members have spoken about deeper themes and they are legitimate themes. Although they may stray slightly from the provisions in this bill the themes about savings and KiwiSaver and the refinements made to that scheme are an attempt as a nation to provide an avenue and some products that New Zealand families can put their money into. It was never going to be easy. Dr Cullen in our time created the architecture for this scheme and provided different incentives and the refinements in this bill actually make the scheme work a wee bit better. But the scheme is only as good as the money trickling into it and therein lies the major deficiency in the thinking represented by the Government around this theme and this area of Government. 
Despite having a goal and the rhetoric to deepen the reservoirs of capital—we all know that one of New Zealand’s great economic challenges is the absence of adequate capital and our reliance on overseas sources of capital—it is disappointing that this bill although it scratches at the surface does not signal what we as a nation under the stewardship of this current Government short though its reign may be are doing to deal with this deep structural problem. It may be said that the Government is largely of the view that it is not really a problem provided that the costs of the State can be melted further and further down. Obviously with more and more indiscriminate cuts of the sort that we have seen and heard about the overall position of the nation is not as parlous as some of us think it is in respect of capital accumulation. But that is a very impoverished view to have about future generations of New Zealanders who have joined the many wakas leaving Aotearoa on the bright flight going to Aussie and to other places. Perversely enough this bill is an incentive for some of those people to come back along with their valuable savings. I do not know whether the return of that capital and the return of those people will reverse the fortunes of our nation but anyone who has his or her roots here is obviously welcome to come back home. 
The difficulty with the current thinking reflected by speakers on that side of the House is that they genuinely doubt whether a lot of their nervous energy political capital and intellectual capital in the form of the member sitting at the very rear of the House ought to be exhausted on that issue. But they will find moving forward into election mode that savings will be one of the very critical issues. It goes to the heart of our sense of destiny and our sense of having a claim on the future for our children and our grandchildren in our lives here in New Zealand. I ask whether we can address the issue of savings through these very modest refinements or at a deeper level through supporting the architecture that was established to attract people to make a sacrifice now so that the quality of their lives will be improved in the future and more important so that the quality of our national economic infrastructure can be upgraded. 
On our side of the House it is beyond cavil; there is no quibbling. We are firmly of the view that saving needs to be advanced significantly. We think that these refinements need to be augmented substantially. It has been said that we cannot afford the refinements. But the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister without any apparent strategy or logic are quickly getting rid of options as to how we can build on the very key vehicles referred to in this legislation—that is the vehicles that are up and running managing Kiwi funds and delivering presumably quite good outcomes on those funds. 
The area that is outstanding and that has not been referred to in any of the speeches from members on the other side of the House is how such funds are to be deployed to meet the development challenges of our own country. How are those funds to be rewarded if they are deployed in our own country to grow the infrastructure? If we want jobs if we want expanded incomes and if we want a reason to keep our graduates and our families from feeling the need to go away from New Zealand then we have to provide the fiscal succour for firms to grow and create jobs and expand their income frontiers and their horizons. That will not happen by lamely scratching around the sides. 
To date beyond this bill but still connected to it there has been a paucity or an absence of any ideas that animate people in our community or even animate us across the House. It is sad that an issue as critical as the future of savings and the availability of capital cannot receive bipartisan support. Our leader on earlier occasions has made those kinds of gestures only to see them repudiated for short-term petty political gain. That is a very sad and disappointing way to advance this agenda but such is life. We will debate those things as we get closer to the election date next year. 
GST is referred to in this legislation. Indeed other legislation that deals with GST is wending its way through the organs of the House. We support the changes here but let it never be forgotten that GST is a consumption tax. Although there are some economic reasons as to why a society may want to move to a consumption tax the difficulty with the decision that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have made is that the shift towards a consumption tax was essentially funded by additional borrowings that have then been rechannelled and are benefiting largely disproportionately those who already have the ability to pay. That is why towards the end of this year there will be not only a wind change—and it will not be a mild zephyr—but a sea change. People will not be able to enjoy the quality of life that they thought they were purchasing when they yielded their votes to the personalities on that side of the House. They will realise not only that they are poorer that their quality of life is diminishing and that the services they took for granted are being cut but that they will face a deep and dare I say it for a number of New Zealanders almost existential problem as they watch more members of each generation move away and leave our country. Those issues we were promised would be arrested. Those issues we were promised would be dealt to effectively and we would see a reverse. The only thing we have seen in reverse is the connection between what National promised and what it has delivered. 
Although Labour members support this bill we will not support as we move forward the very partisan short-term shallow but quite nasty ideas that continue to come on the economic policy front from members on that side of the House. Kia ora tatou. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.