Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is subject to correction 
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4283. Text is subject to correction.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 Well I think we have had a medical breakthrough here in the House tonight. I think for all those insomniacs out there they will not need to go to their local general practitioner for sleeping pills; they will just put on an endless tape of John Hayes—a loop tape of John Hayes’ dulcet tones talking about the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. I have got to say that it was an extraordinary contribution by Mr Hayes. Mr Hayes said that if the Labour Government got in it would be borrowing and spending. But in his own Les Patterson - like unique way he forgot—or maybe he has not had enough sleep—to mention of course that his crew are borrowing 300 million bucks a week to fund a tax cut.  
He also talked about tax as shifting resources from the rich to the poor. Those were the sorts of words he used but he forgot to mention that on top of the $300 million per week that his Government is borrowing the so-called tax switch—which is the tax swindle—by this Government gave the top 10 percent 44 percent of the tax cuts. And the bottom 20 percent got what? They got 2 percent. Poor old Sir Les Patterson had not got the abacus out; he had not worked out using all his fingers and toes exactly what the tax switch had done for New Zealanders. Those earning the most got the most and those earning the least basically got zip. So I say to John Hayes: use all your fingers and toes. We will even supply some batteries for the calculator or another abacus if that is broken. I say to John Hayes: try again. Go out and get the standard 4 old-fashioned maths textbook; work out how to add divide subtract etc.; work out percentages; and have another crack. And then he can come back into the House have another speech and send the rest of us to sleep again. Well done I say.  
He is an example of the ineptitude exhibited by this Government. You know when it is in trouble because it sent the big heavy hitters—seriously heavyweight hitters some of them—into the House to defend a tax bill.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s not as heavy as he used to be.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well using the Maggie Barry principle I cannot comment on that. Gerry Brownlee probably can of course and maybe our friend Parekura our good mate but I certainly cannot. I am a shadow next to John Hayes.  
But I say this: this bill is interesting because other colleagues have pointed out that it is tinkering. Dr Clark on our side pointed out that the Inland Revenue Department computer system has been around since 1992. I will give members an example of how this computer system is inefficient and why this Government should have done something about it. We all pay tax on interest on deposits right and that is an automatic process. It is deducted. The tax on interest is deducted from your account and it goes to the Inland Revenue Department. But then you get your tax statement if you want to request one—and I have taken this up with the Inland Revenue Department a number of times actually—and there is not a line item that says: “Tax on interest”. What you then have to do in theory unless you want to just gamble and say that you have paid your tax—and most people do not do anything about it because the tax has automatically gone in—technically is you can ring the Inland Revenue Department and advise the department or send in your tax certificate from your bank and then the Inland Revenue Department will send another statement out generate it and put the line item in.  
It is irrelevant actually because you have paid your tax. It is an automatic thing if you have given the bank your Inland Revenue Department number. Even if you have not you are on the top rate. So why is this the case? It is because the Inland Revenue Department computer system cannot reconcile the fact that it has got the money from the bank. The bank has sent it the money—and Mr Hayes’ tax on interest has been sent through—but it cannot reconcile it through its technology so that it appears on your statement. How stupid is that? That is something actually because taxpayers want to be reassured that they have—99 percent of them—complied with the law and actually paid all their tax and most do of course. But there is an inefficiency and something that could have been worked on.  
I just make this point: when we talk about debt and when we talk about taxes another history lesson from Mr Hayes that he sort of forgot in his laconic way is that of course when we left office Mr Hayes we left with net Crown debt being zero. You will find a zero if you go back to the old standard 4 maths textbooks and find out what a zero looks like Mr Hayes. Have another crack. Zero— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Like he used to look.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes that is right. Have a look at the scales; there will be a zero on there. Just do not jump on Johnny. The second thing is that we had 9 years of surpluses—9 years of surpluses. That is the legacy we bequeathed this bunch of tired inept Ministers and members of Parliament who now run the country. That is what we bequeathed them: net Crown debt at zero and 9 years of surpluses. The record of this— 
Simon O’Connor 
: So you took too much money from people. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will come to you in a minute. The record of this Government of course is 300 million bucks a week in borrowings 44 percent of the tax cuts going to the top 10 percent and the bottom 20 percent those on Struggle Street whom Mr Hayes of course has never bumped into in his electorate—he would not know the bottom 20 percent if he fell over it—get 2 percent. What is the great tax reform the Government hit us with in the Budget? It even dealt to the old paper boys. It even put the boot into the old paper boys. I do not know whether John Hayes was ever a paper boy—you know cycling around maybe on a penny farthing or with a bit of exertion running around delivering papers. He may not have even embarked on that; he might have been a pizza delivery man. Who knows? They probably get paid more.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The James K Baxter approach to delivering pizzas: they never made it to the destination. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. Forgive him Mr Speaker. That is John Hayes’ legacy and that is his Government’s legacy.  
And then we look at KiwiSaver. This was of course a proposition that National in Opposition opposed bitterly—utterly opposed. It opposed it it has tinkered with it and it has made changes to it. In terms of making changes to a superannuation scheme—multiple changes in a short period of time as these geniuses have done—ask anyone in international finance and they will tell you that actually that undermines people’s confidence in that superannuation scheme. I worked in Australia in around 1995 and I remember that the then Prime Minister John Howard made substantial changes to what is a pretty gilt-edged superannuation scheme that the general public of Australia because it is compulsory superannuation there enjoys. There was a hue and cry about it. Of course it is compulsory so you cannot not be a part of it. But where you do not have a compulsory scheme of course people say: “Hang on they are changing the rules. We’re not going to be part of this.” They are not confident that some future crew—this mob of course—will not come in and next year have another tinker and another change and undermine confidence again. The truth is that this mob—and they are a mob an outfit; they are not a real political party they are a mob—this crew over here do not really believe in KiwiSaver. They never have. They have got it because we put it in and because there is universal acclaim that people want it. 
Andrew Little 
: People love it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: People love it. It is just like of course them wanting to put the teacher-pupil ratio up. They did not do it because the people got to them and said that they were not going to accept it yet they still say of course that they were right to do it which means that they will probably do it again. They have no principle and no backbone and these are the sorts of tinkering around the edges things that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You can’t say that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Which? These are the sorts of tinkering around the edges policies that we have from this Government as it implodes—as it implodes—and as it becomes— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. It is something that I expected the Government to do and I would have thought you would intervene. It has long been a breach of the Speakers’ rulings in this House to suggest that members opposite lack backbone. For that to go unchallenged I think is inappropriate and if the Government will not stick up for itself then I will. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I want to thank Trevor Mallard for that redemption speech. When you have got Trev behind you you know— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Has he got a backbone? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh Trev has got a backbone—cast iron. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Titanium. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Titanium. And there are a few around this place who might be able to strengthen their backbones by adopting our colleague’s philosophy on life— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wanted to make sure it was on the record Clay. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank you. I appreciate that. I have never said a bad word against Trevor Mallard at all. But anyway— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hey that’s a breach of privilege. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I may have misled the House yes. The final thing I want to say is I want to address some of Mr Goldsmith’s comments very briefly and simply say this: for that man to talk about debt when he was a councillor under John Banks’ mayoralty which trebled—trebled—the debt of the Auckland City Council is extraordinary. This is the man of course Mr Goldsmith who wrote two books one on Don Brash who is gone and one on Mr Banks who is hanging by a thread—hanging by a thread. The next one that is due to come out given that he is so overworked that he has time to write a book will I suspect be  
The Rise and Fall and Fall and Fall of John Banks 
 or perhaps and we wait with bated breath it could well be the political obituary of Mr Banks.