Boscawen John: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Boscawen John: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19017] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have been listening to this debate with a great deal of interest over the last hour or so. I particularly want to comment on the contributions of Gareth Hughes Shane Ardern David Cunliffe and more recently Brendon Burns. 
Let me start with Gareth Hughes. I always find it very interesting when members of this House refer to the pronouncements of the Human Rights Commission and particularly when those members come from both Labour and the Green Party. I have a real respect for the Human Rights Commission and in particular its Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan. I listen to what the Human Rights Commission has to say and particularly so in view of the courage shown by Rosslyn Noonan Judy McGregor and Sylvia Bell in the commission’s submission on the Electoral Finance Bill which came before the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last Parliament. I remind Mr Gareth Hughes of what the Human Rights Commission said in respect of that bill. The commission said: “The bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish”— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This has nothing to do with the taxation bill and I ask the member to come back to what this bill is about. We are speaking on the third reading and on the report back from the Committee stage. Those are the points that need to be canvassed in this speech. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and I understand that. The reason I thought it was important to put Mr Gareth Hughes’ criticism in context is that the Human Rights Commission has come out and spoken out against the proposal to restrict the ability of those over the age of 55 to borrow for living costs when they are studying. Those students will not be restricted to borrow money for their fees but restrictions will be placed on their ability to borrow for living costs. 
I say that although the Human Rights Commission has come out against that proposal I would say to the members of the commission that there is a cost for everything. There is no free lunch. As contained in this Budget some $15 million a year is borrowed for living costs for those over the age of 55 which has to be paid for by someone. As I will point out it will be paid for by the people who will get the least from this Budget—the most disadvantaged. The people at the bottom of society the people who actually do not have the money to contribute to KiwiSaver are required to pay taxes—if not income tax then certainly GST on the food and the clothes they purchase—to subsidise those who can go to university. In the same way those same people on low incomes those same disadvantaged people have to subsidise those who will enjoy unlimited superannuation into their 80s whereas those who are not as well off usually have a lower life expectancy. 
Gareth Hughes also continually refers to the paying of subsidies to polluters. We hear the Green members’ constant refrain about paying subsidies to polluters. They seem to think that the more times they say it the more it will be true. But the tragedy is that it is not true and I suspect that most members of this House do not understand that. I would like to explain because the emissions trading scheme which is an item in this Budget— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The emissions trading scheme is in the Budget and Brendon Burns— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we are talking about taxation matters which are in the bill. The bill is not about an emissions trading scheme. I ask the member to confine his comments to the contents of the bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I suggest to the House that the Government has had to make reductions in the subsidies on KiwiSaver because of what the Government is spending in other areas. Maybe we would not need to be legislating for these cuts in subsidies if the Government was not wasting money in so many other areas. I note that on page 179 of the Budget documents buried under “Heritage culture and recreation expenses”—and a previous speaker Brendon Burns would have us believe that heritage culture and recreation are about the rebuilding of Christchurch—we find mention of the Kyoto Protocol and the emissions trading scheme. What a great place for the Government to bury the fact that we are spending over $1.2 billion on that scheme and that we have to cut other Government services. 
I refer now to the comments of Shane Ardern when he was speaking on this Budget. Mr Ardern said that he was very proud to represent a farming electorate that had a very large number of dairy farmers. He said he himself was a dairy farmer. Given that he is a dairy farmer he will know that dairy farmers pay about $3000 a year on the emissions trading scheme. I thought it was particularly interesting when Mr Ardern said that the solution was to tax the productive sector and that to tax farmers more would fix the economy. National seems to think that is true because that is exactly what the emissions trading scheme does. That is why we are discussing the cuts to KiwiSaver contained in this Budget. 
Let us look at the contribution made by David Cunliffe. That member like so many in this House thinks that this is a debate between National and Labour. There is no alternative they think so the member waxed lyrical about the fact that some pollster is showing that 48 percent of people believe that this Government is going down the wrong track and only 32 percent believe that it is going down the right track. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Relevance? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is what he said. He said that as sure as night followed day when a greater number of people believed that this Government was going down the wrong track—and he said that more people believed that it was going down the wrong track than the right track—there would be a change of Government. Well the ACT Party believes that this Government is going down the wrong track. The ACT Party although it will be supporting the changes in this bill—the changes in the KiwiSaver subsidies and the other taxation changes in this bill—is supporting it because we have a confidence and supply agreement with the Government. But we do not believe that these changes go far enough. We absolutely do not. We think this is a lost opportunity. Mr Cunliffe said he had been waiting 3 years for a Budget from National that would give some vision and some courage. But the members of the ACT Party have not been waiting 3 years; they have been waiting 18 years. We have been waiting 18 years for a Budget that can lay down some foundations for making some significant increases in the productivity of New Zealand. 
There are a number of things to commend in this Budget. Yes we are returning to surplus by 2014 or should I say we are projected to return to surplus. Those projections of course are based on— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Hope. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Hope is exactly what it is. Those projections are based on rising incomes and growth of some 3 or 4 percent in that 2014 year. Media commentators have said this morning that Treasury has been forecasting growth of much higher levels than we currently have. It is forecasting growth at a time when there is massive world uncertainty; the US dollar has massively devalued. So this is very much a “hope” Budget in the same way that it is another lost opportunity just like the previous 17 Budgets that have been brought down by both Labour and National Governments since the ACT Party was formed in 1994. 
We have been talking about the cuts in the subsidies to KiwiSaver. One of the fundamental points of this bill—and Amy Adams made the point—is that the cuts are gradual. Certainly the changes in Working for Families are gradual changes. But who can actually save the money? Who are the people who can put together and save currently the 2 percent contribution which is now to be 3 percent? Are many people on low incomes or working for the minimum wage in a position to save 2 or 3 percent? I suspect not but they are the people who will be paying the taxes to subsidise those who can. One of the reasons that ACT opposes the bill is that we do not think we need to have those incentives. We do not think that those earning low incomes and paying GST should be subsidising those in a position to save. 
I find it very interesting that Brendon Burns referred to the fact that Sir Roger Douglas as Minister of Finance back in the then Labour Government of 1975 introduced the Labour superannuation scheme in that year and Brendon Burns waxed lyrical about how big that pot of money could have been. Mr Burns is absolutely right: that would have been a big pot of money 35 years ago. But Mr Burns did not say that there was actually no subsidy for it. It was based on a 4 percent employer contribution and a 4 percent employee contribution. There was no $1040 one-off payment. There were no ongoing subsidies that the poor had to pay for. 
We are supporting this bill. But it is a lost opportunity and we look forward to playing a much bigger role in Government following the election.