More confusion between Treasury and Inland Revenue

In his Breach of Privilege complaint to be laid against PM Grant Robertson has claimed Key has misled Parliament, saying “Inland Revenue told John Key” and “Inland Revenue actually said” – but there’s no evidence of what Inland Revenue told Key despite confusion connections being made by Robertson and The Standard.

Robertson’s press release linked to a Treasury report:


As I show in Breach of privilege complaint against Key this doesn’t show any specific Inland Revenue statement, it just says that Treasury consulted with IRD for their report.

However Greg Presland at The Standard quotes in Another #Keyfib about Kiwisaver:

Yesterday’s Treasury dump of papers included the advice from the IRD to the Government about Kiwisaver.  The IRD paper included this advice on the likely effects to Kiwisaver providers:

Lower numbers of KiwiSaver members (particularly among the self-employed and children) and therefore lower revenues from fees and/or a greater number of dormant accounts (if affected individuals stop contributing)”.

Can anyone reconcile these statements?  I have tried to but I cannot stretch the language sufficiently.

That’s word for word the same as from the Treasury statement, but Presland links to an Inland Revenue publication. That’s a virtual replication of the Treasury Impact Statement but can give the impression it’s a statement from IRD.

I say “virtual replication” but it’s not identical. I haven’t checked right through but the first paragraphs differ:

Treasury version:

1. This regulatory impact statement has been prepared by the Treasury in close consultation with Inland Revenue.

IRD version:

1. This regulatory impact statement has been prepared by the Treasury in consultation with Inland Revenue.

But regardless of how close the consultation was there is no clear statement directly from Inland Revenue.

Roberston has claimed:

“Budget documents released yesterday show the Inland Revenue told John Key the exact opposite of what he told Parliament.“Inland Revenue actually said the impact of scrapping the kickstart on KiwiSaver providers would be a ‘lower numbers of KiwiSaver members (particularly among the self-employed and children)’.

The Treasury statement does not show what Inland Revenue told Key, nor does it show that they actually said anything at all to him.

Leave a comment


  1. Brown

     /  11th July 2015

    Labour seem consistently stupid. Long may it continue.

  2. west coast feral

     /  11th July 2015

    Never have the words of elected Labor MP Damien O’Connor rung so true, “Labor is run by self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”

  3. kittycatkin

     /  11th July 2015

    Please tell me that Grant Robertson doesn’t not know the difference between IRD and the Treasury. Even I know what the two do. In conversation, it could have been a lapsus linguae such as we all make, but this can’t be explained away as that.

    I can’ see how someone’s being gay has anything to do with their ability to be or not be a good politician.

  4. gregpresland

     /  11th July 2015

    Um if Key was referring to another paper then please provide a link to it. You seem to be saying that this was not the paper he was referring to but it contained advice that contradicted what he said and it did come from the IRD sort of.

    Your other passage has nothing to do with numbers enrolling.

    • As reported by NZ Herald:

      A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he stood by his comment.

      A briefing paper prepared for Cabinet a month after the IRD advice said removing the kickstart payment was “likely to have only have a limited effect (if any) on enrolment rates in Kiwisaver” because other subsidies and employer contributions remained in place.

      Neither Robertson’s link nor your link shows what IRD said.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  11th July 2015

      You mean it was “sort of” an irrelevant publicity stunt. The main point is that Kiwisaver is also a useless stunt that has failed to increase New Zealanders’ savings or wealth but has certainly constrained their flexibility in deployment of their own savings while making capitalist money-managers a lot of money. Well done, Labour. Yet again another lousy policy achievement.

  1. Breach of privilege complaint against Key | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s