Borrows Chester: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: General Debate[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts):There is nothing quite like an election date coming close to let us think about some of the statements that have been made over time about the wonderful system of MMP that we have. I would like to quote David Lange who said that it was “the flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.” To quote another very well-regarded member of Parliament the Hon Steven Joyce he said to me and a few of us earlier on that if the answer is Labour the Greens and New Zealand First—and Andrew Little sitting over there—and Hone Harawira Kim Dotcom Laila Harré and Pam Corkery then let us have a look for another question. It is bloody—it is absolutely frightening to think what a piece of unparliamentary language dropped into a general debate could possibly mean for the order of the House.But when we think about Labour and its releases today you have got to wonder just how far it would want to go. What Labour members have released today in their fiscal policy is one thing but it is completely different from what they were saying just a couple of years ago and it will be completely different from what they say down the track if the New Zealand public were stupid enough—thank goodness they are not—to invite them into Government. Who knows where that motley crew would end up bearing in mind the policy that they have announced today?One of the things I find really interesting is that a couple of years ago when Labour was in Government it decided that you were rich if you earned over $60000 a year and so it taxed you at 39c in the dollar—39c in the dollar because you were rich if you earned over $60000 a year. Then Labour changed its mind and it said you were rich if you earned over $150000 a year. This is what Labour decided in Opposition. If you earned over $150000 a year you were rich and so Labour would tax you at 39c in the dollar. But now Labour has decided that you are rich if you earn over $150000 but will tax you at only 36c in the dollar. The interesting thing is that Labour members always accuse people on this side of the House of looking after their rich mates. Well we have found recently they have got a few rich mates of their own that they have been looking after.Under this National Government which is so intent on looking after its rich mates we know that the top 2 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay 22 percent of all personal tax in this country. Well if that is a way of looking after your rich mates I am sure they are not all that happy about it. What we also find out is that the top 12 percent of households in this country pay 76 percent of all net income tax before you even account for New Zealand superannuation.Hon David Parker: What about GST? Tell us about GST.Hon CHESTER BORROWS: What we do know from Mr Parker and he will agree is that the poorest people in this country pay no net tax because they get Government subsidies for all the GST they pay and PAYE. But having been accused of always being so mean on this side of the House—Labour and the Greens and the rest of their motley crew being the only ones who care—I would like to know why the Labour-Greens Government did not insulate 280000 homes when it was in Government. Why did it stop at 8000 homes? Why did it not raise health care for under-13-year-olds to 24/7? Why did it stop at 6-year-olds? Why did it not spend $43 million on mental and physical health assessments for kids coming into State care? Labour and the Greens did not do that but they are the only ones who care!Why did they not provide microfinancing options for beneficiaries so that they would not have to run off to loan sharks? They did not bother doing that either but they are the only ones who really care! Why did they not set targets for child achievement in schools? They did not. They never set a target that they could be held to account for. Why did they not set targets for recidivism for people leaving penal institutions? They did not bother about that. Why did they not set a target for lower crime? The reason is that they did not care enough or they never believed for a moment that they would achieve it. What we found when we came into Government was a skyrocketing prison population and an estimate that it would carry on growing. They never once set a target to achieve any social indicator. The only target we know they set was for more women on their side of the House and it is going to shaft them.