Key John: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Key John: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17797. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of National to support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) but just before we rush this bill through its second reading and remaining stages the House should take a moment to reflect— 
Darren Hughes 
: Before National changes its mind on it. 
JOHN KEY 
: I say to Mr Hughes that there are a whole number of things we would love to discuss but I will try to keep my comments to the subordinate legislation. I want to make a comment about the validation of the Alcohol Advisory Council levies which go back to 1983. I make the point that in reading the commentary on the bill—and I was not a member of the Regulations Review Committee— 
Darren Hughes 
: You can’t get everything right! 
JOHN KEY 
: Lucky I was not. In reading the commentary it seems that it could be debatable whether the levies issued during that period were legal. The errors include for instance “for the notices issued in the years from 1983 to 1987 and 1989 the unauthorised setting of levies by litre of alcohol rather than by ‘proof litre’” and “the unauthorised setting of differential rates for spirits depending on their alcoholic content” and so on. That raises the quite interesting issue whereby people who paid that levy may now feel they were not legally required to do so. Here we are under urgency in the dead of the afternoon and with the Government rushing through a work programme that is sketchy at the best of times having to validate some levies that are at best debatable. I think the House should reflect on that and when we get to the Committee stage National members will be taking the opportunity to have a very good look at those levies just to make sure. 
I do not want to dwell too much on the errors of Parliament back then. I want to address another part of the subordinate legislation before us. I turn to clause 12 which validates the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order. As Parliament will know those rates are annually confirmed through Order in Council and if through this subordinate legislation Parliament was not to reconfirm them they would lapse. Today we are putting those through and that is the reason in part that National is supporting this legislation. But I want to draw to the House’s attention the likely changes that will take place to some of those social security benefits and in particular to give some idea of what the situation looks like for those New Zealanders who currently have a war pension payable under the War Pension Act of 1954. 
Although it is difficult from the legislation to see exactly which particular people we are talking about I want to give the House some idea. Their current allowance is $159.76 and that will rise to $162.24. I think it is quite interesting that here we are in this Chamber—a war memorial itself—recognising this issue but I want to make the point that that is roughly a $3 increase for those in receipt of war pensions under the Act of 1954. National supports that in the sense that at least those people are getting something but I see the Minister of Finance scrunching up his face and well he might. Those New Zealanders receiving that pension have over the last 5 or 6 years had to go through significant cost increases passed on by a Government that does not care about New Zealanders on fixed incomes. New Zealanders who pay rates bills have found that they have gone up by about 10.2 percent per year because this Government passed the Local Government Act which allows local government bodies to carry out any crazy idea that comes into their head. 
I was delighted if I may say so that the Minister of Finance who also chairs the infrastructure committee chose not to proceed with the Whenuapai commercial airport because that would have dumped a whole lot of costs on the ratepayers of Waitakere. That was a very wise decision if I may say so. My point is that the costs were the costs— 
Simon Power 
: You shouldn’t say so. 
JOHN KEY 
: I should not say so; OK I will say so in the papers. But the point is that the Government is quite happy to say to the pensioners of New Zealand that here are some additional costs—that here is a 10.2 percent increase in their rates bills. Similarly early on in the year the Government passed the indexation of petrol. Many fixed-income New Zealanders will have noticed when they go to fill up their cars that the price of petrol has gone up. It will go up every year because the Government has passed enabling legislation to allow petrol to be indexed. 
We also saw the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton introduce a bill to provide a sherry tax—a bill that was passed under urgency I might add. Many of us remember that the Minister came to the Chamber and told the people of New Zealand that he was doing that to stop young New Zealanders from drinking. But not too many young New Zealanders drink sherry. It is not too cool to turn up on Saturday night with a flagon of sherry tucked under one’s arm. So what he did was rob dollars and cents from the pension books of New Zealand. Pensioners sitting at home are unable to afford their sherry. That is why in my electorate two major sherry producers are now having financial difficulties. They cannot sell it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Mr Hughes that he is a young man and he does not go out on Saturday night with a flagon of sherry tucked under his arm. I am slightly older than he is and I do not drink sherry either but I will tell him that the cost has gone up by about $14.50 because of that tax increase. That is the additional cost. Many older New Zealanders who like a sherry on a Friday or Saturday night cannot afford it because Jim Anderton decided he did not want 16-year-olds to drink it. He has robbed them of their sherry on a Saturday night. 
My point is that we are here in the dead of the afternoon forcing through a subordinate legislation bill. Why are we doing that? Because without it New Zealanders getting a war pension will not get an extra $3. At the same time we have a Government that is very happy to have rates go up by 10.2 percent very happy to have petrol indexed— 
Darren Hughes 
: How will National stop that? 
JOHN KEY 
: If you want a discussion on how National would fix things I am very happy to have it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
JOHN KEY 
: Sorry I was referring to the junior Labour whip who was encouraging me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. The junior whip will keep quiet. 
JOHN KEY 
: I think so. The junior whip was getting excited. He wanted me to give the National Party manifesto. I would have been more than happy to take a 20-minute speech on that because New Zealanders want to hear that sort of information. They do not want to hear the drivel of the member for Otaki. 
I go back to my point about the bill which is that we have a Government that is happy to pass on costs to fixed-income New Zealanders across a range of activities whether it is rates petrol sherry—you name it the Government taxes it—as the Government has done 30 times this year. I note that the Minister of Finance had no answer to that on  
Morning Report 
 this morning. He has raised levies and taxes 30 times this year and under this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the poor old war pensioners get three bucks—a $3 increase. We look forward to engaging with the Government on this matter in the Committee stage because we think fixed-income New Zealanders deserve more.