Cosgrove Clayton: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cosgrove Clayton: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13504] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I really enjoy following on from a speech made by that member and before her Katherine Rich. I want to speak to Part 2 and the taxation-related amendments. If any member in this Chamber would know about taxation especially GST that member would—and we know why. That member would know all about taxation and avoidance. She would know the lot. 
I want to address a couple of points for the old tumbleweeds over there. I want to quote from a former Australian Prime Minister who said: “This is the one that brings home the bacon.” We know that that crew over there are psyched out by this package. I cannot believe some of the arguments. We have just heard Katherine Rich and Deborah Coddington who one would hope would have some intelligence say that there is nothing in this package for low and middle income people. Let me tell them that 300000 families are delivered an average increase through this package of around $100. 
Pansy Wong 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.I thought you had made it very clear to the Committee that this debate is now much narrower. It is confined to the amendments to the Tax Administration Act the Housing Restructuring Act and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I listened to the member. He was speaking to Part 2. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: They cannot hack it—that is their problem. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Where in Part 2 does it refer to tax evasion by other members of the House? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: About 300000 families on between $25000 and $45000 are delivered an average increase of about $100 a week in direct income assistance. That is fantastic. I refer members to the $55000 bracket. Let us go through it. This package has been attacked by members on that side because the measures do not all come in in one hit. Why is that? Because that would not be sustainable and sustainability in an economic sense was something that the old tumbleweed Lockwood Smith and a few of the others were actually for before this package came out. 
So let us have a look at it. This is what occurs. Under Part 2 a single-income person on $55000 with four kids will be $70 a week better off in April 2005. In 2006 that person will be $110 better off in 2007 will be $150 a week better off and we will maintain our surplus. 
But in terms of taxation let us look at what the alternatives would be to Part 2. If the National Party had its way we would get a flat tax of 11c costing $20 billion. I want to know from that side over there and their rich mates in ACT and using that $20 billion which hospitals and schools they would close and which pensions they would cut. They should front up and tell us now because in talking to Part 2 I say that we have fronted up in this bill today with a policy directly targeting hard-working low and middle income families. 
What have we heard from the Opposition? Zip. I tell members why. They are psyched out absolutely psyched out. The old “tumbleweed” over there can grin at me but I invite him to get up and give us his tax policy and keep talking about it. Because I say that under Part 2— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he must refer to members by their correct titles. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise I was referring to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. Our policy actually targets low and middle income people. I just use the words of the Prime Minister yesterday. National Party members say this Part 2 is an election bribe. That is what they have been going around the country saying. Well why is it as the Prime Minister said that when we target hard-working battling low and middle income people they say it is an election bribe but not an election bribe when they propose a $20 billion tax cut that will give people like Dr Smith and Gerry Brownlee 600 bucks a week extra and then somebody on $55000 will get 39 bucks a week extra and somebody on $39000 will get zero? Because if we stack up our figures in Part 2 and our calculations targeting low and middle-income battlers against what those members say they will do we know what will happen. 
We know this policy has been well received because it is honest because it is over 3 years and because we want to make sure it is stable. I suppose what Dr Cullen could have done is what the National Party says he should have done—plonked it all in 1 year. Then we would have been criticised I am sure for spending the whole lot in one hit. Then they would have stood up and said that this is a traditional Labour Budget—sell everything off tax and spend. One cannot have it both ways. This is a sustainable package. Mr Brownlee nods. How two-faced is that? That is true. Did the member nod? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No not at you mate! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Of course that member comes from Ilam and those income earners in the tax bracket that will be affected by his tax package are all in their big flash houses all wearing their jewellery on their wrists and saying: “This is terrible isn’t it?” because the low and the middle income earners get a break. Mr Brownlee’s mates in Ilam—and I look across at him with glee—do not get a break because they are doing OK.