Beaumont Carol: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Beaumont Carol: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11126. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise too to speak about the great tax swindle. This Budget is meant to be delivering a taxation system that will better reward work and savings and that will make the system fairer. That is what is explicitly stated in the Government’s rhetoric about this tax swindle. It goes on to say that the Government is delivering a package that not only is fair but is seen to be fair. The Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill has a number of aspects. I will talk about two of them and those are the lifting of GST and the reducing of personal income tax. 
Last night I thought that I would look at the word “fair” given that much has been made of fairness. We on this side of the House are certainly very committed to the concept of fairness. The Government has used the word “fair” in its Budget statement and all its Budget documentation so let us look at what it means. According to the  
Oxford Dictionary  
the word “fair” is about concepts like justice equity and reasonableness. I want to know whether in all honesty those people across the other side of the Chamber can consider their actions to date to be fair. The Salvation Army earlier this year when it reviewed the first year of this Government in its document  
A Road to Recovery  
noted very strongly that in the last 12 months: “ … gains that have been made over the past 5 years in reducing child poverty have probably been lost and there are signs of a widening income gap between the well paid and poorly paid.” One could ask whether that is fair. 
One could also ask whether the actions in this Budget will address issues like child poverty and widening inequality in New Zealand. I thought that I would look at some of the figures that were given out as part of the Budget package. What will people actually get? Well if someone earns $16000 per year the tax cut will give that person a certain amount extra but then of course he or she will be paying extra GST so the person will supposedly be $1.36 better off a week. That is before the implications of inflation and other cost rises like the increases to accident compensation levies and other costs that have not been factored into that table are taken into account. So people who earn $16000 a year will be better off by $1.36 per week. I went on to a supermarket website last night to look at what that would get them. I found that they could buy—probably appropriately—a four-pack of Home Brand toilet paper with what they will receive. The $1.36 will buy a four-pack of toilet paper—that is great! 
People on $22000 per year will also have a tax cut and pay extra GST. As I said I am not counting in all the other costs associated with rising inflation accident compensation levy lifts petrol lifts and all of those things; I am counting only the straight figures. Those people will receive an extra $3.56 per week. What can they buy with it? Well on the supermarket website I saw that they could buy themselves 2 litres of milk. That is pretty good! If people are on $30000 per year they will receive an extra $6.28 per week and that would get them 2 kilos of apples. The supermarket website shows that people on $38000 per year could buy a bit more than that. They will receive an extra $9.21 so they will be able to buy a loaf of Vogel’s bread and 2 dozen eggs. They will be able to have poached eggs on toast—fantastic! 
If people are on $100000 per year—let us jump to the other end of the income scale—they will be $41.66 better off a week without including all the other costs that I have parked. At $120000 per year they will be $56 better off a week. On an income of $300000 a year which is the average salary of the chief executive officer of a large company people will receive $178 more a week. Of course the chief executive officer of Telecom will receive an extra $4845.44 a week. I did not work out what that would get him at the supermarket but obviously it would get him quite a lot. 
How can that be just—being able to buy toilet paper versus receiving an extra $4000-odd a week? How can that be just for those on the lowest incomes who cannot make ends meet and who really are struggling? I do not know whether members opposite are talking to their local budgeting advice services but I have been doing so all around New Zealand in relation to my member’s bill which deals with the issue of loan sharks. I can tell members that those services know how hard families are struggling. They know that most of the people whom they see have to resort to things like high - interest rate loans. I do not think that this Budget delivers for those New Zealanders yet they are the New Zealanders who need to be given a helping hand. They need to receive something from the Government.