Cullen Michael: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:116] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 The reason we are fighting old battles all over again is that the National Party is fighting its old positions all over again. This is 1990 all over again. What was the key phrase in yesterday’s Speech from the Throne? It was “We’re going for growth.” Well who made that slogan up? Ruth Richardson said in 1990 “We’re going for growth.” and frightened the hell out of everybody as soon as she said it. What were the first two things that that Government did? It abolished employment equity and it started cutting the incomes of the poorest New Zealanders. What are this Government’s first two measures? It is introducing fire-at-will provisions and it is cutting the incomes of many of the lowest-paid New Zealanders. This is 1990 all over again from the National Government. 
But the most extraordinary thing today was that Mr English the Minister of Finance gave a second reading speech in which he failed to answer a single question that was raised in the first reading debate because he had no answers. All he did was say “Oh somebody in the Labour Party had some dirty tricks in the election campaign.” Well that is pretty rich coming from the man who organised the leak of emails about Don Brash in 2005. That is pretty rich coming from that particular member. 
But he put up the most extraordinary argument and I want to go over it again. He said that the Labour Party lost the election because it failed to put the National Party’s policies under sufficient scrutiny. In other words Mr English said that his policies were so weak in detail that if we had debated those policies in detail National would have lost the election. That shows real confidence in what it went to the country on in 2008. That argument says “Our policies were rubbish and why didn’t you rubbish them and save me the Minister of Finance from having to move this rubbish policy through Parliament under urgency?”. That I think is the most extraordinary argument I have ever heard from a Minister of Finance. Indeed it went further. He said that because we did not do so that was a justification for passing this rubbish policy. Goodness knows what else is going to be “justified” by us in being passed. 
The attitude in Mr Foss’s argument was that if something were in the National Party manifesto it need not go to a select committee. Well that is going to leave select committees free from the rest of the work for the next year or two since presumably most of the work coming through is somewhere within the National Party manifesto. 
These questions were not answered by Mr English. Why is National increasing taxes on low-paid workers? Why is it increasing taxes on low and middle income families compared with what is now in the law—not some announced policy by the previous Government but in the law—to take place in 2010 and beyond? We have the ACT Party which stands for cutting taxes no matter what voting for increases in taxes in the House today. Why is the Government cutting research and development in the private sector? Why is it cutting savings? Why is it not costing its claim of an increased take-up with the lowering of 4 percent to 2 percent and has it considered the issue of portability with Australia? 
We are told that the whole point of National’s policy is to stop people going to Australia yet what is one of the main attractions of Australia for workers? Workers in Australia get a 9 percent payment into superannuation funds paid by their employers. Under KiwiSaver workers are still going to pay 4 percent but they can expect 9 or 10 percent to go into their superannuation fund. This bill will cut that back to 4 percent or 5 percent and the worker could end up paying the full 4 percent contribution thanks to other changes that will come through later this week or sometime on Saturday. That is the reality. That is a real disincentive. 
But it is worse than that. If as I believe is likely to be the case the Australian Government says the superannuation portability is off the table because there is no longer a match between KiwiSaver and that Government’s compulsory scheme then Kiwis in Australia now will be locked into Australia. They will not be able to come back to New Zealand because they will not be able to get portability from their Australian scheme into KiwiSaver. Under portability they were going to be able to transfer their Australian funds into KiwiSaver; they were going to have the option of moving back. High-quality Australian professionals and managers were going to be able to come to New Zealand and continue a scheme and be able to move back to Australia if they wanted to later in life and that option that choice was important to attract people over here from Australia. So what is the purpose of doing this? 
It is clear that National has never thought through that issue. It is clear that National members have not talked to the Australian Government. It is clear from the stunned mullet looks on their faces that their caucus has never discussed this issue. It is clear they still do not know what it is they are doing in that particular respect. The member Shane Ardern can drive his own personal tractor up the stairs of Parliament as often as he likes; that is not going to bring anybody back from Australia. But having a proper superannuation scheme with portability will bring people back from Australia despite a National Government within New Zealand. 
Of course the other thing we learnt from Mr English—and I tell Mr Flavell that I hope Maori Party members were listening—was that there has been a blow-out on Treaty settlements. Did Mr Flavell hear that? No he did not hear that. He as usual whenever the National Party is talking now puts his ear plugs in so he cannot hear what is being said because he does not want to know. He has been parading around the marae and at those huge hui with 10 or 12 people with Maori activists because the public was not supposed to know where the meetings were being held saying: “We’re going to deliver everything to you. We’re going to deliver the ownership of the foreshore and seabed. We’re going to deliver mana-enhancing measures all over the place.” 
Well let us go through the mana-enhancing measures in this bill. There are increases in tax for those earning $14000 to $24000 a year. Does that sound like a group that might have a disproportionate Maori content within it? There are increases in taxes on families—all families with kids—earning under $44000 a year. Does that sound disproportionately like Maori families? Has this member enhanced the mana of those families in voting for those increases in taxes? He voted for it yesterday. He will vote for it today and he will vote again and again and again. I tell Mr Flavell that the cock will not crow just three times; it will crow many times during this day today. He will not be such a big man on the marae now when he goes back. He is going to have to explain with Mita Ririnui present why he voted to increase taxes on his constituents. Why will he be voting for a measure that enables lower-income workers with very little bargaining power to have the employer contribution to KiwiSaver transferred to the employee? Does that sound like a group of workers who are disproportionately Maori? It sounds like it to me. 
The five Maori Party MPs have sold their souls for not even a mess of pottage—for not even a spoonful of pottage. They have sold their souls for an empty promise to enhance not the mana of Maori but their own mana. That is what that agreement was about and they are launching down the same track as the New Zealand First Maori MPs from 1996 to 1999. They will be dog tucker at the 2011 election because their mana is not going to be enhanced. Mrs Turia can drive up with the entire whanau in the VIP car to the 2011 election campaign and Mr Sharples can drive up to his marae in the VIP car in 2011 but they will find silence on the marae which is the bit that will tell them they are in the most trouble. That is what they will find in that particular regard. 
This bill cuts private sector research and development investment. It is a dumber economy. It increases taxes on low-paid individuals. and it increases taxes on superannuitants and beneficiaries who are earning a bit more and working a bit more trying to make their way in the world; it cuts taxes for the chief executive of Telecom. It produces a dumber society with slightly lower taxes lower growth rates lower productivity and greater inequality and more people will stay in Australia.