Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13697] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 It is actually quite coincidental that my call is following that of Gordon Copeland who is one of the three members including myself and Katrina Shanks who are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I am sure that the three of us are delighted to see the media release put out by the very sensible members of the institute which said the Government’s latest move to introduce this special provision for tax relief on redundancy payments does nothing to fix the more fundamental problem of New Zealand’s progressive tax rate structure. This Labour Government complicated the tax structure even more by introducing the 39c rate so I am quite sure that at the last minute there was a backroom deal somewhere whereby the Government brought in a flat rate of tax rebate for redundancy payments. I heard the compassionate speeches made by the Labour member who said how wonderful it was and how considerate it was that that move was made for the lower and middle income workers of New Zealand. 
I thought that while we are in a compassionate mood I would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper and invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne to comment on whether he sees fit to support it. Personally like members on this side I cannot see why on the one hand we gave special consideration to redundancy payments but on the other hand we exclude people who receive lump sum compensation payments for permanent impairment. So if the Minister sees fit to give relief to workers who face the unfortunate situation of redundancy and to give a rebate on their lump sum payment I really think that the Minister needs to take a stand as to why individuals who are unfortunate—usually in circumstances not of their own making—suffer permanent impairment and receive lump sum compensation should not be entitled to have the same relief as is offered in the late Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Labour Government. I say to the Minister that many individuals who are injured whether they incur injury at work or outside the workplace would be of working age and that permanent impairment would lead to hardship that I would say in comparison with the situation with redundancy payments is of a more extensive and permanent nature. Why should those individuals be punished on top of their physical injury? The fact is that they suffer from permanent impairment so why financially can they not get the same relief? I am sure that the Hon Peter Dunne will be looking very hard at this very sensible amendment I have put forward. 
My colleague the very hard-working Dr Wayne Mapp is less positive. He has cast doubt on the compassionate nature of the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne but at this stage I have not decided to concede that. I hope that the Minister will in the next while start to look at my amendment. I think he will owe the public an explanation if he turns down this very sensible amendment. 
The other provision I will comment on—and it is one I actually support because it is basically National Party policy—is in terms of the tax rebate and removing the cap for deduction for contribution donations made to charity. I just want to say that it takes the National Party to really get Labour and United Future into the modern day after all where donors should be rewarded and charitable organisations should be recognised for the good work they do. I think this is a great initiative.