Key John: Third Readings 
Key John: Third Readings 
[Volume:613;Page:10166] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
On behalf of the National Party I will also be supporting the Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill because the legislation contains a number of important elements that National played a part in working hard to achieve while it was in Government between 1990 and 1999. In particular I refer to the triangular tax treatment arrangement of dividends earned by New Zealand investors in Australian companies. Up until this point they were unable to receive dividend cheques on an imputed basis and therefore had the unfortunate experience of being double-taxed—having the tax paid by the Australian company they invested in and then having to record the dividend cheque as income on their New Zealand tax statements and as such having to pay tax here. Important work was undertaken and National is happy to continue to support it in this bill although we note—as the Government itself would probably note—that this is the first step on quite a long road. We look forward to more work being undertaken in this area to harmonise and streamline tax treatment across both countries in due course.  
I also refer to the zero rating of GST in financial services which National thinks is an important move because it prevents the cascading effect and because up until this point financial services firms were treated on an exempt basis and had to pass on GST as a price. I agree also with the Minister’s comments about the reverse charge on imported services which will now be subject to GST but I note that the $40000 limit for individuals might pose some problems if they are unaware of it. I recommend that the department spend quite some time in making sure that individuals are aware of that provision otherwise they will become liable to penalties and suchlike should it fail to do so.  
I also want to mention the issue of specified superannuation contributions and withholding tax. This is an important part of New Zealand. We need to save for our retirement and we need to encourage New Zealanders to save along with employers on their behalf. We should do so because the New Zealand Superannuation Fund otherwise known as the “Cullen Fund” is a complete con— 
Rod Donald 
: A dog. 
JOHN KEY 
:—and a complete dog. It tries to tell the people of New Zealand that it will fund their retirement when even the Minister knows that it will not even reduce the liability to New Zealand by 1 percent. In a country that has currently one in eight people aged over 65—and by 2040 that figure will be one in four—more needs to be done in the area of superannuation planning than the con job the Government has put up in the form of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.  
I want to make reference to Part 1 which the National Party cannot support—no good party would support it. That is the part that sets the annual rate of taxation but despite this Government having an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes of $5.6 billion and the fact that the economy has been benefiting from some very high agricultural prices—and some great work done by the National Party in the 1990s—the Government simply does not know what to do. It is caught like a deer in headlights and simply wants to overtax the hard-working people of New Zealand.  
During the Committee stage yesterday the Minister gave what I am sure was one of his finest speeches—not. He tried to tell us that the entrepreneurs on Paritai Drive did not deserve any support whatsoever that his Government was not a pro-growth Government did not support the hardworking people of New Zealand and would not grow the cake for all New Zealanders to benefit from—rather that he was into redistribution and did not really care whether big business business people risk-takers and hard-working people were supported or not. All he cared about was redistribution to lower earners.  
If he thinks that will grow the economy and deliver bigger results for superannuitants who are caught by the average wage and if he thinks it will do anything to grow the wage rates of lower-income and middle-income New Zealanders then I strongly suggest that he start reading the many Treasury reports posted on its website. These are delivered by hand to the Minister and staff try to go through them with him line by line. Those reports tell us—as anyone who has read them can tell us—that such a policy of progressive taxation is the worst possible thing we can do if we want to develop a growth economy provide real opportunities for young New Zealanders and not force them overseas by giving them one option only. If the Government did not believe that and did not know it was correct then the Minister and the Associate Minister would stand in the House and proudly tell the people of New Zealand that the $5.6 billion operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes was not a cyclical result but a structural result and resulted from the work they had been doing.  
The Minister cannot come to the House and tell us that nor can the Associate Minister and nor can any Minister involved in commerce in this Government—whether it be the Associate Minister for Small Business John Tamihere or the Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel. They know it is a complete con they know they are doing nothing for the growth of this economy they know they inherited some wonderful policies from the National Government. They know that when their time is up in 2005 they—like the All Blacks on Saturday night—would have blown a wonderful opportunity and will have to step aside and let a real party like the National Party take New Zealand to the great heights we once enjoyed and will enjoy again.