Norman Russel: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 20 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I stand here to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill which the Green Party will be supporting even though it has some significant concerns about the bill. Perhaps the single largest problem with the bill is of course the way that the Government has chosen to cut tax rates for upper-income earners as part of its 2010 signature tax cuts policy. Of course part of this bill continues those tax rates going forward. It is a simple fact that the tax cuts from 2010 meant that the top 10 percent of income earners were $1.1 billion a year better off. Those basic tax cuts that National introduced were a direct transfer of wealth to the top 10 percent of income earners of around $1.1 billion per year one of the single most expensive policies that this Government has introduced. The Government prioritised spending—public money—on the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand.We live in a country with over a quarter of a million children living in poverty. You would think that getting money to that quarter of a million children would be a top priority for spending $1.1 billion every year year on year. But in fact what the National Government decided with the support of John Banks Peter Dunne and the Māori Party as they voted for the Budget was that the priority for spending $1.1 billion—so $1100000 every year; that is the cost of the tax cuts—was the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand. It beggars belief that this is the value system of this Government. The value system of this Government says that the priority for spending a huge amount of money every year should be those who have the most. Instead of saying we should be directing spending to the 270000 children living in poverty to the kids who cannot afford lunches at school and the kids who cannot afford shoes to wear to school—instead of those kids being the priority for Government spending; instead of the kids who are growing up in poverty and cannot get a proper education because it is very hard learn when you are hungry—instead of National prioritising those children National chose to prioritise giving $1.1 billion every year to the top 10 percent of income earners. Year on year it is continuing the spending in every Budget. To my mind that is a completely unethical decision and I think it tells so much about the values of the National Party.The Green Party recently proposed spending about $100 million a year to support children going to decile 1 to decile 4 schools that is the poorest schools in the country so that they got a decent lunch and access to welfare services and health care at their schools. We called it the school hubs programme. The spending involved was $100 million a year or thereabouts—a very significant sum of money. But it is less than one-tenth of what National gave to the top 10 percent of income earners through the tax cut policy. National attacked the Green Party for spending lots of money on the poorest children in New Zealand—$100 million a year a significant sum of money I totally agree—but we believe that it was the priority. National spends $1.1 billion every year giving money to the top 10 percent of income earners and it attacks the Green Party because it wants to spend one-tenth of that amount to make sure that poor kids get an opportunity to get a decent education. Those are the priorities of the Government—the National Party and the ACT Party—and these are priorities of the Green Party. We believe that the Green Party proposal should be in this bill. If you were going to do something about income tax then why would you think that you should give $1.1 billion a year to the top 10 percent?The other thing of course that is remarkable about the tax system in New Zealand and the spending that the Government prioritises is the subsidies to the oil industry. The Government subsidises the fossil fuel industry in the order of $40 million to $50 milliona year. On top of that there is no price on carbon any more in New Zealand. The Government has slowly gutted the emissions trading scheme and of course there is no carbon charge so effectively there is no price on carbon. The Ministry for the Environment has modelled what will be the effect of the current policies of this Government on greenhouse emissions. The Ministry for the Environment tells us that according to its official projections net greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand will increase by 50 percent in the next decade. So there will be a 50 percent increase in net emissions by New Zealand in the next decade. That is a result of the current policies of this Government.Instead of putting a price on carbon and introducing complementary measures—around transport for example—in order to reduce our greenhouse emissions the New Zealand Government has policies in place that will result in a 50 percent increase in greenhouse emissions in the next decade according to the Ministry for the Environment. Just think about it for a second: what if every country in the world was as irresponsible as this Government. If every Government in the world took the attitude that it was going to increase its net emissions by 50 percent we would have an even worse climate problem than we have at the moment. It would be a climate catastrophe. When you look at the floods across southern England at the moment and when you look at the typhoon that hit the Philippines most recently these are kinds of extreme weather events that climate scientists tell us we can expect more of as we destabilise the climate. This National Government has a policy of destabilising the climate so that our children inherit out-of-control climate change.Hon Tau Henare: I thought climate change was calming down because of the winds in the Pacific?David Bennett: What a load of rubbish.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: The noise that people might hear in the background is the heckling from the Government members who are climate change deniers. They deny the science of climate change which is remarkable. They are very happy to have the science that sits behind their mobile phones or the science that sits behind their computers but when it comes to the science behind climate all of a sudden they become science deniers. They say: “Oh no we do not want to have that kind of science. We do not like the climate science.” So they heckle repeatedly about how they do not like the climate science but the fact is that climate science tells us very clearly that if we keep increasing our greenhouse emissions we will destabilise the climate which will result in more extreme weather events—the kind of extreme weather events that we have seen in southern England and the Philippines in the recent past. Under this Government’s policies the plan is to increase New Zealand’s net greenhouse emissions by 50 percent.Hon Tau Henare: Rubbish! Why is it that climate change has calmed down through winds in the Pacific or did you not read that article? I didn’t think so.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: The Government members may shout and scream about it and heckle about how much they hate science and how they are not going base their policies on science but the science around climate is pretty settled now. We have very large studies done by thousands of climate scientists across the world and they have now reached these conclusions. Yet still we have the deniers in this very Parliament—Hon Tau Henare: Oh the deniers.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: —who are screaming and shouting as climate deniers do that they do not accept the science around climate. That is why in this bill in front of us which should be putting a price on carbon there is no price on carbon and New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions will increase.On top of that we have increasing inequality in New Zealand. The labour cost index which is according to Statistics New Zealand the way to measure changes in earnings over time tells us that since this Government came in wages have increased 9.3 percent while inflation has increased 10.5 percent. This is according to Statistic New Zealand’s labour cost index which is what it tells us to use. Wages have gone backwards compared with inflation. Real wages are declining in New Zealand under this Government. Those are the statistics according to the Statistics New Zealand labour cost index the one measure that it tells us to use to measure changes in earnings over time. All of these things are happening under this Government.Then we have the structural imbalances that this Government is making worse. This is reflected in the current account deficit. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand says that the current account deficit in New Zealand will increase to 5.8 percent of GDP by 2016. That is 5.8 percent of GDP. We will have to borrow or sell assets in order to cover the current account deficit. That is what “current account deficit” means. So yes there is a short-term stimulatory effect going on in the economy at the moment but it is funded by borrowing and by selling assets to offshore owners. That is not a sustainable strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand. That is not smarter greener economics. That is going backwards. It is our children who are going to have to pay and the next Government is going to have to fix it up.