Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18978] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am glad the member who has just resumed her seat Clare Curran talked about making up stuff because there has been a lot of that going on from that side of the Chamber during this morning’s debate. Earlier we heard from Sue Moroney who talked about reversing the $9.1 billion of tax cuts to top-income earners. 
Sue Moroney 
: That’s right. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: She says that is right: $9.1 billion of tax cuts to top earners. Somehow if we reverse that cut we can pay off our $17 billion deficit. I was somewhat taken aback by her claims because having been intimately involved with the design of the tax package over the last couple of years the $9.1 billion figure came as a considerable surprise to me. I had never heard it before let alone in respect of high-income earners. I went back and checked with officials exactly what the cost would be of reversing the tax decrease for those high-income earners because I thought I might find out where the $9.1 billion figure came from. If the member was right then maybe there was merit in her argument. But I have to tell her she is slightly wrong. She is wrong by about 1300 percent. 
Amy Adams 
: That’s quite a lot wrong. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is a slight error I know. It is within the margin of error perhaps. But the fact is that contrary to her claim of $9.1 billion of tax cuts to the top 10 percent the total cost is $725 million per annum for those people. 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh no it’s not. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes it is. The member talked about a $9.1 billion tax windfall for high-income earners but it is $725 million. So when her colleague talks about making up stuff I agree with her. That is the whole basis on which the Opposition’s case has been based this morning. We should roll over the top tax cuts and therefore we would not need to make the changes to Working for Families or KiwiSaver. The only problem is that those members cannot add up. They are 1300 percent out in their calculation. I worry what the state of a Budget might be drawn up with that type of arithmetic. One of the members I think Mr Hodgson earlier on actually said it was just a case of plain arithmetic. It is pretty plain arithmetic if it is 1300 percent out at least. The member is still sticking to the claim of $9.1 billion. No one can find it. 
Sue Moroney 
: Over how many years? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well if we took it over something like 13 years at least she might be right. But that is not the context the member claimed it in. She talked about a $9.1 billion tax windfall for the top 10 percent. 
Sue Moroney 
: That’s right. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: She still believes it even though she is 1300 percent out. When Opposition members want to talk about Part 2 and the changes it makes they should get the basic facts right. 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh we have. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: She has she says! If the claim is that Part 2 is required only because of the windfall tax gain by top-income earners then the figures should at least match up. They should not be 1300 percent out as under the member’s claims because that simply destroys any shred of credibility for her argument and to the worthy cases mounted by all her colleagues this morning.