Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise to take a call in this Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill on behalf of New Zealand First and once again on behalf of my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau.It will probably come as no surprise to anyone on the other side of the House that on an overall basis New Zealand First obviously will be voting against the Budget. However we are going to be voting for this bill. It is—[Interruption] It is not all bouquets I say to members opposite. There are brickbats in here as well. Essentially I will echo some of my colleague Mr Shaw's comments—that something is better than nothing. In actual fact this tax bill as part of the necessary enabling legislation for the Budget—anyone could argue that it is not as good as it could be but it is a lot better than things have been. We have found it incomprehensible actually that a party of opposition—what is currently a major party of opposition—could vote against a tax bill that will increase the bottom line of incomes for those nearest the bottom of the ladder.Carmel Sepuloni: Most of it's going to the higher-income people.RICHARD PROSSER: My colleague Ms Sepuloni says that most is going to people on higher incomes. Well in dollar terms on an individual basis it is probably true. However that is kind of irrelevant from the standpoint of people who are at the lower end of the scale who will be getting another maybe only $11 maybe $5 maybe $20 maybe $30 maybe $41 a week. For those people that is an important increase and it is one that we are not going to stand against.We do not agree with a lot of what this Government does on an ideological basis. Ideology is what Budgets really should be about and tax bills that are part of the enabling legislation to make those Budgets come about need to be driven by philosophy. We are not here to talk I do not think at this stage—certainly not until we get to perhaps the later stages of the bill—about the technical details of the way that the taxation infrastructure is organised. It is about the driving philosophy behind it and about the central tenets the central points of this bill and what it says it intends to do and how the Government that is promoting it claims that it intends to go about making those changes.I am pleased actually that Ms Kaye when she spoke talked about the Opposition. There is actually no such thing as the Opposition. We are a party of opposition as are the other parties around us. But we are certainly not a unified entity and that will be seen when the campaign which obviously this Budget will be a part of kicks off.Getting back to the essence of the bill when we look at what it is fundamentally intended to do it is designed especially to assist low and middle income earners with young families and high housing costs. And it does do that. That is unarguable. But whether it does it in a way that some other parties would prefer whether it goes as far as anyone would like us included is actually neither here nor there. What it does do is deliver more money into the pockets of a lot of people who need more money in their pockets and for that reason we will be voting for this taxation bill.The biggest issue obviously that we have as a nation—and with this Budget of which this tax legislation is a part—which we have to address is that the agenda that the National Government has been following over the last 9 years has simply gone too far. It is almost like they want to wind the clock back to 1984 and restart all those experimental things that were done to New Zealand that have caused such an enormously deleterious effect on our social structure on the way that New Zealand was.What has happened over that time is that we have seen a major rise in inequality between wealth and opportunity from those at the bottom and those at the top. This bill will go some way a small way to addressing that and that is a worthwhile thing to do.Mr Robertson when he spoke made the comment that this tax bill on the part of the National Government was a march into the territory of the Labour Party. Well actually yes it is. You cannot argue with that. I understand why Labour would be experiencing some chagrin about that. Essentially National is kind of cutting Labour's grass a little bit and perhaps that is what has motivated Labour members to vote against a bill that fundamentally they should be voting for because of the things that are in it that it will do right.When we look at the thresholds that this bill will bring in lowering the marginal tax rates for low and middle income earners and increasing the bottom two income tax thresholds are good things to do. When we say that we have increased the bottom threshold from $14000 to $22000 that actually for a lot of people in that particular sector in that quintile as it has been called is a significant change. It is an enormous difference in percentage terms not in dollar terms as far as those of us who are in a fortunate position are used to thinking of.I will get a tax cut as will everyone else in this House. I will get my 20 bucks a week or whatever it works out to be. Yes it could be argued that I do not need it. But being consistent across the board means that if you are making more to start with then yes you will get more of a tax cut in dollar terms. That does not mean that it is a greater percentage of your disposable income. In those terms the net beneficial effect for the people in the lower quintiles will be much greater than the amount that we get. Actually there does not appear to be a facility by which anyone who does not want a tax break is able to give it back to the Crown and maybe that is something that could be addressed.But tax rates and thresholds and so forth are but one element. I know we do not want to stray off the topic but one thing that this bill—in fact the Budget overall but this bill in particular—does not do is address secondary tax rates. It is all very well moving thresholds and doing that is a good thing and that will assist the position of those people who find themselves there but nearly 2 million New Zealanders work multiple jobs and actually getting rid of secondary tax might be of more benefit to them. That is perhaps a discussion for another day.The independent earner tax credit is going to be discontinued and fundamentally it might as well be because as we have heard only about one in three people who are entitled to it actually claim it. I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that most of the people who are entitled to it do not know they are entitled to it and that perhaps has been one of the things that has led to the proliferation of companies that advertise on TV and online offering to get you your tax refund when in fact you were entitled to it anyway. You could simply apply for it and get all that back without having to give 20 percent of it to the likes of the companies that specialise in doing those sorts of things.The people who do lose that will be compensated. As the Government has said the tax credit as it is taken away will be replaced by the change in the threshold. Those people will benefit to the net tune of 77c. They are not actually the $1 bill people; they are the 77c people. Maybe Labour has rounded that up to $1 or perhaps they are just not very good at maths. Before the members over there start crowing being good at maths is something you are going to have to be good at as well because if you take 59 members and subtract 15 percentage points at the election how many does that leave you with? That is something that you are going to have to deal with in 4 months' time.Another point that I want to just touch on without dragging this process out too long is the family tax credit rates and increasing the rate for young children so that they come up to the same level as kids aged 16 to 18. As anybody who has kids knows they cost a lot regardless of what age they are at. Their needs are different at different stages of life but there is always money going out and it makes a lot of sense and that is one of the good things in this bill to increase the abatement rate and decrease the threshold and simplify that part of the system so that regardless of the age of the kids you do get the same amount. There are plenty of things to spend it on and again it is one of the things that those people who are most in need of it will appreciate getting.To reiterate as I say we will be voting against the Budget but we will be voting for this bill because in actual fact as part of what is generally an overall bad package this is not a bad piece of legislation. For that reason we will support it. Thank you.