Jones Shane: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14320] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora. I stand with my colleagues to oppose the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill. I note that it will be referred to a select committee and every interested New Zealander will have an opportunity to come and make submissions. I want them all to know that this bill will not emerge from a chrysalis like a butterfly that will fly away and deliver goods; it will die at the feet of the Government. It will certainly not be supported by us. If people want to go through the ritual of making a submission and demonstrating that they believe it is important to entrench inequity through our tax system even more than do the changes that the current Minister of Revenue has presided over then they should make their submissions. But the submissions will be an exercise in learning about how select committees can be manipulated by the executive and turned into squawk-boxes that serve only to reward minority parties for their support to keep going a broad policy that worsens inequity and rewards a very narrow range of New Zealanders. 
There is an element of piety about this bill as befits its architect. There is a sense that a narrow range of New Zealanders because they live in a style that one might associate with the 1950s ought to be rewarded while those who are in genuine need ought to be ignored. It is possible that this bill fits a broader picture and the broader picture is that tax concessions and tax give-aways are the best way to reward the class of citizenry that supports a particular political party. That is essentially the economic development policy of the Government through its tax give-away. 
We absolutely oppose this bill. It carries on the multibillion-dollar tax give-away entered into earlier this year. That in itself is premised on an assumption that if a narrow range of New Zealanders get a significant tax slice and a reduction in their tax rates it will catalyse the economy and somehow unleash a level of dynamism and more firms will emerge and more jobs will be created. Of course it will have the opposite effect. This bill proposes to take money away from the most vulnerable and direct it towards a very narrow range of New Zealanders— 
Simon Bridges 
: No it doesn’t. The vulnerable don’t pay tax. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: That young man should learn that it is better to confess ignorance than to provide it every day. As the Maori say “Pai ke atu me whaki i te kuare kaua e whangaia to kuare ki tetahi atu.” 
[ 
“It is better to disclose being ignorant; do not cast your ignorance upon someone else.” 
]  
But such a suntanned mascot would not understand what I have just said. 
Labour will not be supporting this bill. We hope that the public realise that we will never treat tax policy in such a narrow iniquitous fashion. 
I am called on to elevate the importance of the contributions made by a genuine lawyer in this House—not one who pretends he lives in the Bay of Plenty but who lives in Auckland and not one who models himself on Perry Mason but unfortunately lacks a sense of being well adjusted. I will talk about a real lawyer in this House: Mr Chris Finlayson. He has pointed out that this bill represents an egregious example of discrimination. That man understands the law and has a style of delivery as befits someone who craves attention from the legal fraternity. 
We thoroughly agree that this bill ought not to be supported because not only is it very discriminatory but it is ill-judged. It is ill-judged for a host of reasons. It does not treat families in their broadest context. It does nothing to create jobs and growth. Where will the jobs come from under the current mix of policies that we are forced to endure week after week? Each year there is a tsunami of young men and women leaving school—quite apart from those who have been dislocated from the job market. Where will the jobs come from? They will not come from a tax break that is predominantly for the wealthy. They will certainly not come as a consequence of a tax break for the self-satisfied. That will not happen. 
In fact New Zealanders were hoping to receive as part of broader tax reform a lever that would enable jobs to grow and firms to generate more foreign exchange earnings by investment and innovation. This bill does nothing. This bill takes $5 billion and rewards a narrow category of New Zealanders. It deepens inequity and it rewards vested interests which is why we cannot possibly agree with it. 
The notion of income splitting is only one way of lessening the problem of people not having enough to pay their way. A far better way would have been to not proceed with the tax cuts that will benefit only a very narrow range of people and similarly to not proceed with the imposition of a GST reform that will worsen the cost of living statistics. I tell members that once the by-election in Mana starts and that side of the House—although I have a great deal of respect for its candidate unlike other members of that small sub-caucus group of the broader caucus. She will find—[ 
Interruption 
] I have to acknowledge Mr Paul Quinn because in the gallery today are some kaumatua from my rohe from Taemaro from the Waikohatu block. I know that Mr Paul Quinn has been endeavouring to assist that very proper respected lawyer Mr Chris Finlayson unlike the younger member who has yet to visit the kohanga reo. 
Once the Mana by-election rolls out we will see that the GST reforms such as they are have worsened the prospects for the average family to pay its way and to meet its regular bills on food on buying school clothes and on buying sports gear. We do not have to explain why we have it. The responsibility is on that side of the House to explain why this punitive measure has been visited upon the most vulnerable in New Zealand society at a time when they can hardly afford to meet all their daily expenses as a consequence of the global meltdown. 
Mana is where we will see how these ill-conceived ideas impact on people in a political way. That will be a dress rehearsal for the big game next year. I do not refer obviously to the golden oldie game; I refer to the election which will be fought and won by those who oppose such acts of false piety as we see in this bill and the ill-conceived ideas that are designed to reward a narrow class and forget about the bulk of people who have significant issues that they cannot address. Their cost of living problems have spun out of control as a consequence of that Minister of Revenue who fortunately will not be here after the next election. Kia ora tatou katoa.