Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to seek to persuade the Minister in the chair to my tabled amendments. They are tabled amendments of course to this Taxation (Budget 2021 and Remedial Matters) Bill which amends the Income Tax Act 2007. My contention is that this bill and its purposes don't go far enough and that these tabled amendments would be more than worthy amendments to be made. I do want to on Budget day put it within the context and the purpose of really the central part of this Budget which is benefit increases. It's a position where the Government is quite clearly acknowledging that we've got an issue that there is an issue with incomes for lower income earners but of course what has happened here today is announcements in relation to only those on benefits. What these tabled amendments of course would do would take that recognition of these huge cost of living pressures inflationary pressures that have I accept been the case now for some considerable time and apply them in a more broad manner to more people who require that assistance. Bluntly speaking what I am talking about is not simply beneficiaries—because there's a case been made for them—but also what I suppose we colloquially call today the working poor. Actually I'd go even further than that. I think there is a case to be made for middle income earners and I say that because frankly speaking when you're earning $10000 $20000 $30000 $40000—actually if you're earning $80000 in Auckland and you have dependants today I think it's hard to make the case that you're somehow living large on the fat of the land. In fact you may well if you have children depending on the Working for Families structure for your particular circumstances be struggling as inflationary pressures and petrol rent energy and other costs have gone up.So the amendments that I am seeking in terms of tax indexation or what is often called bracket creep would I think do three things that would greatly improve and be strong remedial changes to the Income Tax Act 2007. Firstly of course we would deal with that bracket creep. In that sense with those inflationary costs of living pressures as they go up—and of course what also happens is that incomes go up people though surreptitiously move into a higher tax bracket they are paying more tax and therefore they are worse off. They have less disposable income in their pocket. This would not in a huge way but in a modest way deal with that issue. Secondly what this bill would do is something related but subtly different and it goes to the heart of income tax and the issues of income tax in this country. We have now—for certainly all of this century but I'm sure I'm right to say the last 30 or so years—seen the tax pie—David Seymour: It's a history lesson.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well they gave us one earlier today despite the fact they got it entirely wrong about Ruth Richardson. They seem to forget the fact that they were in Government for nine years from 1999 to 2008—but anyway I digress. I do want to keep on track and focus on this bill. But I do just say to the member interjecting it's entirely unfair. It was an entirely cheap political shot from the Government what they did.But on this bill that second point—the member says this is a history lesson; well be that as it may—is that the tax pie over the last three or so decades has grown and grown and grown in comparison to the private incomes of New Zealanders. The Government's sack of goodies if you like has grown as there has been bracket creep and they have taken more—my argument is—at the expense of everyday ordinary New Zealanders certainly the working poor and middle income New Zealanders. So that is the second thing. There's a third thing as well. There's a third point in this as well that I want to make in my persuasion to the Minister and the Government about this and the tabled amendments to be made. And that's this: Grant Robertson and the Hon David Parker—Tāmati Coffey: Are awesome.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —may well—well that's a matter of debate a debateable point as the Speaker would say. They could say I anticipate that Look actually well we just can't afford to do this. We can't afford to do this because it might cost"—look at my last figures about two years ago—"$600 million or $700 million per annum to make these rather modest bracket changes once every three years per annum." and I acknowledge that's a significant amount of money. They can't afford that. But the Prime Minister today said in relation to benefit increases rhetorically but I thought quite powerfully "We can't afford not to do this—we can't afford not to do this." That is the logic when it comes to beneficiaries. I say it's also the logic when it comes to the working poor and even those in middle income. But there's also a more powerful point actually which makes this rather different from the situation when it comes to beneficiaries and what has happened there where it's effectively a transfer over and it is this. It's a conceptual point but it seems to me it's a significant point. This is not the absence of tax that the Government is getting and was already getting; rather what it is is simply the absence of an increase in tax take. It's not money they were getting anyway. It is a pile that is growing as that bracket creep happens. So they're not losing money. That's simply the absence of growth properly understood it seems to me. I also want to make this point in relation to these tabled amendments that fit nicely here in this remedial matters bill and would be a part of the logic. Another objection could be "Well it's not fiscally neutral." and of course in a bill process there is a veto power that comes I think right at the end of the bill process that the Government or indeed actually—not the Government—the finance Minister personally must exercise. So you could think that. But strictly speaking properly understood these tabled amendments are not in that class because my contention is that these tabled amendments are fiscally neutral. All we are asking the Government to do is provide for a mechanism where once a term at the start of a term the Commissioner of Inland Revenue advises whether there has been bracket creep in terms of that Consumers Price Index basket of goods and what is happening there and advises the finance and the revenue Ministers about that. But crucially according to these tabled amendments the Ministers would nevertheless have the ability in terms of those provisions to say "No we're not going to do that." and all they would need to do—a bit like the Attorney-General's New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports if you like—is provide their reasons for that. So the Minister in the chair personally could provide reasons why it was not appropriate to change those brackets and I'll give you an example. For argument's sake with the current inflationary measures of around about what is it about 2 percent you would see that 33c for the $70000 tax bracket go up to something like I'm not getting this to the dollar but $72000 $73000—[Interruption]—yep—which you know is not huge but is a meaningful cost of living measure for those on that income. So that is Minister in the chair what we are asking for here. We think they would be good sensible remedial measures and very much actually in keeping with the kind of spirit that the Government is trying to put across in this Budget other than that nasty cheap shot they had at Ruth Richardson and the "mother of all Budgets"—a cheap political shot that it was."