Goff Phil: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goff Phil: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:145] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I want to know what David Bennett will say when he goes back to Hamilton East and talks to the folk who come into his constituency clinic—presumably he has one—who are earning between $14000 and $24000 a year. What will the member say when they say: “Mr Bennett you promised us a tax cut but under your tax changes we are paying more tax.”? What answer will Mr Bennett give to the people in Hamilton East? What about when the hard-working family that Mr Bennett has just told the Committee he is representing comes in? They are earning less than $44000 and they will come in and say: “Mr Bennett you said you were going to look after the hard-working battlers in your electorate but under your tax changes—the National Government’s tax changes—we’re paying more tax.” What will Mr Bennett say to those people? 
The title of this part of the bill—“Personal tax cuts”—is a lie. It is a lie for many New Zealanders because for lower-income people the hard-working battlers of this country these so-called tax cuts are not tax cuts at all; they are tax increases for those people. The Labour Party will vote against this legislation because of the unfairness of it. We know that people at the bottom of the heap—the people who struggle to pay the bills the people who struggle to get their kids to school and to meet the cost of living—get nothing from the National Government. But if we turn up at a decile 10 school where the children’s parents are earning big money we see that they will be getting hundreds of dollars of tax cuts. 
The ordinary New Zealander has a sense of fairness. The ordinary New Zealander believes that people need to be given a fair go. Sixty-six percent of Mr Bennett’s electorate is earning less than $44000— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How many? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Sixty-six percent. I ask Mr Bennett what he will say to the battlers to explain why they are paying more tax while those on a good income such as Mr Bennett himself will probably get $100-plus in tax cuts. I ask Mr Bennett where the fairness is there. There is no fairness and that is why we are opposed to this bill. 
The rhetoric that we heard in the Speech from the Throne was about how this National Government was not going to tolerate an underclass and how it was going to stand up for the rights of the everyday New Zealander. What about the everyday New Zealander who was promised a tax cut by the National Party in Opposition and now finds that in fact he or she will be worse off than if there had been a Labour Government and they were receiving the tax cuts that had already been legislated for? What about a couple where the man is earning $35000 a year? Many people in Mr Bennett’s electorate are in that situation: the man is earning $35000 a year and probably is working in a factory; the wife may be earning somewhat less—say $22000 a year—because she is looking after the kids. They will actually be $14 a week worse off because of the so-called tax cuts that Mr Bennett has just got up in front of this Committee to defend. What will Mr Bennett say to those people? I would like to know the answer to that. 
Hon David Parker 
: “Sorry.” 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: “Sorry.” That is what he will have to say. “Sorry. Oh you didn’t read the fine print?”—as Mr English said—“It was all there. We didn’t say it—we put it in the fine print.” That couple did not read the fine print so I am sorry but caveat emptor they have ended up with a National Government cutting their living standards not raising them as they had been promised. 
The truth is the National Government does not give a damn about the Kiwi battler. Those members do not even pay lip-service to the decent society that Jim Bolger once talked about. What happened to the decent society? What happened to that sense of fairness? The truth is that the people who will be paying more tax are the same people who are most vulnerable to job loss. As we saw again from the Speech from the Throne there is no plan and there is no vision from this National Government about how it will protect people’s jobs. It can talk about tax cuts till the cows come home but if one does not have a job then a tax cut is no use. There was a lack of planning by National. It wasted 9 years in Opposition. It had no plan to deal with a situation where jobs might be threatened. 
The people whom we heard about yesterday are the same people who will be denied protection against unfair dismissal. In the first 3 months of their working life they can be sacked for being pregnant sacked for their eyes being the wrong colour and sacked for standing up for their rights and there is no right for them to get redress for the unfairness of those actions. 
I tell Mr Flavell that I have a question for the Maori Party. This legislation is the first test for the Maori Party in this House. This legislation whose first reading was voted for by the Maori Party will damage the economic interests of almost all of that member’s constituents. The Maori Party members are collaborating with the National-ACT Government in doing that. This legislation is the first test for the Maori Party members as to whether they would stand up for the interests of their electorates and they have been found wanting. They have been found wanting because they are supporting this legislation which undermines the rights the income and the living standards of ordinary Maori working families who will be punished by this legislation. Those families will say to you Mr Flavell that you will go the same way as other Maori electorate members who made promises then joined with a National Government—Maori electorate members collaborated with the last National Government—and failed to deliver and to stand up for the rights of your people. You should hang your head in shame at what you are doing in the Chamber today. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This member seems to be unaware of the Standing Order that we cannot address members of Parliament in that fashion—quite apart from the very distasteful language he is using. He was told yesterday by the Speaker not to use that terminology. He is doing it again today and I suggest that the Chairperson advise him to become aware of the Standing Order and to practise applying it in the Committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Deputy Prime Minister has a habit of taking this point of order when Labour members are speaking. The speaker before Mr Goff Mr Bennett repeated exactly the same phrase all through his speech but we did not pull him up on it. We let the debate flow. The Deputy Prime Minister has decided he will raise this point whenever a Labour member is speaking. I thought we had one standard of citizenship in New Zealand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it is also important that when the Deputy Prime Minister opines on these matters he is accurate. There are Speakers’ rulings on this matter; I think he will find that there is not a Standing Order. I think he should have a bit of a look at the Standing Orders and the next time he goes to break up a speech at least get it right. 
Chris Tremain 
: I will speak to the senior Opposition whip’s comment about our being the only ones today to bring up the point about incorrect use of “you”. The Hon Trevor Mallard over there has brought it up on numerous occasions. In fact throughout the second reading debate he brought up that point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me make a quick ruling. Firstly members know that they must raise a point of order at the time—that is important. Members cannot say that because they did not raise a point it should not be raised. It is a matter of whether the institutional understanding and rules of the House are being broken 
. 
 That is the first point. With regard to the point of order I think the Committee needs to bear in mind that when it moves away from a certain standard of decorum that does bring a degree of unrest within the Committee which is not helpful to the debate. I ask the member to continue and to bear in mind the points I have made. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. The first reason we have opposed this legislation is its inherent unfairness. The second reason is just as legitimate. It concerns how these tax cuts will be paid for. The first way in which they will be paid for is through cutting $1.5 billion out of research and development. At the time when New Zealand needs to be smarter than its competitors this National Government is paying for short-term tax cuts by undermining the ability of our economy to be smart to be innovative to be creative and to be competitive. One award-winning exporting company Endace Ltd made the comment through its chief executive Mike Riley that this cut flies in the face of the knowledge economy. We know that New Zealand as a small and geographically isolated country needs to be smarter than its competitors. That cut to research and development undermines our ability to be smarter and undermines the ability of our industry to create the jobs we need to move forward in the world. 
The second thing that is cut of course is KiwiSaver. Every economist for decades has told New Zealand that New Zealanders need to be greater savers. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are on Part 1 which deals with tax cuts but the member is talking about KiwiSaver and research and development tax credits which have nothing to do with Part 1 at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is a certain degree of flexibility. Members can raise issues for purposes of comparison. I do not think the Minister—no the Hon Phil Goff—had strayed too far away from that. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Your form of address is 2 years and 10 months premature Mr Chairman! 
The second way in which the tax cuts are being paid for is by gutting KiwiSaver—taking $3.5 billion out of the savings accounts of New Zealanders who for the first time in our history have been given the opportunity and the motivation to save. This bill is a disaster from that point of view as well.