Cunliffe David: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 At this title and commencement debate in the Committee stage we have the opportunity to reflect upon some of the arguments that have been made of a more technical nature. The first issue I wish to bring to Parliament’s and the Minister’s attention is the inappropriateness of this Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill including within it matters of a technical nature that are not required for the purposes of implementing the Government’s major pieces of Budget policy. There is precedent to put major Budget policy through in urgency in all stages but it is well established and bipartisan— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member may laugh but he is not known for detailed attention and it would be of value to him as well as to taxpayers if any unintended wrinkles or mistakes of a technical nature in this legislation were sent to a select committee as has been the normal practice. I see the officials who are aware of the risks— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It has not. My goodness we’ve forgotten our recent history. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member is in danger of digging himself in a deeper hole. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’ll be a big hole. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We all know it will be a wide as well as a deep hole and there will be plenty of his colleagues ready to put the dirt in on top when he burrows down. The Leader of the House is misnamed. 
We need to put the marker down right at the start that we think it would have been more appropriate to restrict this 96-page bill much of which is technical. The reason for that is that try as our officials might and assiduous as they are it is always possible that material of a technical nature would benefit from submissions and the review of tax practitioners and others at the select committee process. 
The Committee of the whole House has made much note of the fact that as last evening’s first reaction sees the cold light of dawn and people’s expectations of being better off meet the reality of next year’s inflation three-quarters of New Zealanders will find themselves worse off after this budget at least until 2012 or 2013. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: What rubbish! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Here is some simple mathematics for the Leader of the House. Let us apply 6 percent inflation to that member’s gross salary. Does that member believe he could multiply his gross salary by 6 percent and come up with a number? I would yield to the member if he would like to do that sum in his head. Would the member like to do that sum in his head—6 percent times God knows what he earns; a quarter of a million dollars? How about 10 percent times a quarter of a million dollars for the member sitting opposite? Ten percent times a quarter of a million I say to Gerry. That is an easy one. A round number I say to Gerry. I ask him to give it a go. Well I say to Mr Brownlee that is around about the amount he would lose from inflation over the next 2 years because this ill-informed Budget will stretch the borrowing capacity of the economy. Poor old Alan Bollard’s job just got a lot harder. He will have to raise interest rates to sterilise off this Budget which ends up borrowing to give a $1000 a week tax cut to a millionaire. 
It does not worry Gerry because he cannot multiply 250000 by 10 percent. Detail focus I think proves the point that this bill should have gone to a select committee. I ask members whether I am right. I am right about that. When we go beyond the fact that most Kiwis will get nothing out of this Budget for at least 2 years we then come down to the question of priorities. The Government is really saying that it is a higher priority to give a millionaire $1000 a week than it is to give a rape victim counselling to give a frail elderly woman an hour a week of home help or to help all the people who are reliant—because they have not got $1000 a week extra tax back—on our public hospitals and public health services to be there for them and their families when they need them. The health budget is $300 million a year short—$1.2 billion short over 4 years. That is the real change to the health budget when we apply inflation from this Budget. There will be 6 percent inflation so the health budget will be $300 million short.