Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11104] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very disappointed in this Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill because it is not ambitious for New Zealand. Nothing in this Budget is ambitious for New Zealand. The only step change that I could see in this Budget and in this bill is a step back not a step up. I would have thought that a step up was what the Government was talking about when it talked about a step change but no we find it is a step back. I found in the regulatory impact statement on this bill that the Government was looking to achieve a step up in economic growth by improving the incentives to work save and invest. Well that is not a very clear message to the people to whom I have been talking about the implications of this Budget in the lead-up to it today. 
This bill is not about providing a brighter future for the vast majority of New Zealanders who—I really would like the Prime Minister to hear this—contribute to the economic social cultural and environmental aspects of what defines us as a nation. The Prime Minister dismissed the entire significance of their contribution to our nation when he told them not to be envious of the huge decreases in tax that the wealthy were to face. He told them that those who earned the most would get major increases to their income increases beyond even the weekly earning capacity of some of the people who will receive the smallest additional amount. But he told people not to be envious of the wealthy and the reason that he told them not to be envious was that we had to do something to assist those people because we needed to keep them in New Zealand. 
Well the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
this morning had a very interesting article about who these valuable people were: lawyers and accountants. This is the first time that I have ever heard anyone describe lawyers and accountants as being major contributors to the productive economy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s you and me! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is Trevor Mallard and Lianne Dalziel. We are among these major contributors to New Zealand’s economic capacity. How extraordinary! It is absolutely extraordinary. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I’d be jealous. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Are you jealous of me? I think members should be jealous. They should be envious of me because I am a lawyer so I am one of the people who the Prime Minister thinks are so valuable that he wants to encourage us to stay in New Zealand. Well I am determined to stay in New Zealand and I am determined to make sure that we reclaim the Treasury benches in this country at the next general election. 
Scientists were also included in the list. Now I buy that. I agree with John Key that scientists are a valuable contributing factor with regard to our productive economy. The real economy needs more scientists to work in it. 
Moana Mackey 
: But they don’t earn over $70000. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No they do not earn over $70000 but I will come to wage rates in a minute. We actually get to the nub of the problem—and scientists are included in this—when we get to nurses. Nurses do not earn enough to put them into the extremely wealthy category. What is absolutely extraordinary is that—[ 
Interruption 
] I am listening to all of the National MPs because I want it to be recorded in  
Hansard 
 that the deputy chair of the Commerce Committee Aaron Gilmore the Dunedin list MP Nicky Wagner and Simon Bridges are saying when we are talking about nurses that yes they are in the extremely wealthy category. I said nurses had not been put into the extremely wealthy category and “Yes they are.” is what we heard back in a barrage of interjections from the National Party members. 
I make the point and put it on the record that nurses earn as much as they do because of the pay jolt that the previous Labour Government gave them because of the problems created by National. National opposed the pay jolt. In fact National criticised the previous Labour Government for spending what we did in the public health system and for giving the pay jolt to nurses. Anyway let us look at what National said. That pay jolt only works in the public health sector. How many nurses do members think are paid over $70000 a year to work in rest homes? How many do members think? I think it would not be many. So let us look at what the Nurses Organisation said on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
this morning which was that nurses with 5 years’ experience earn on average $60000 per annum. So they do not even reach that category. 
Why have those professionals be singled out by National? It is to stop them leaving the country. But Statistics New Zealand tells us that workers across all sectors leave the country. Housekeepers restaurant workers drivers and labourers are also among the top 10 percent of occupations of people who leave New Zealand alongside nurses teachers and finance and sales professionals. I tell this House that these changes are not about reducing the tax paid by housekeepers. I am sure that Bill English has worked out exactly how much more he will receive in this pay packet each week but I bet he has not worked out how much his housekeeper will receive because that person will not receive very much at all. 
The issue is actually not just about low-paid wage earners as well. I know that we have talked about them tonight. But I have been talking to taxi drivers other self-employed people and small-business owners and they say they are gutted by the increase in GST. It will put their precarious businesses under a real threat of failure. I know that National does not give a toss about small to medium sized enterprises and certainly not about the self-employed. But when those businesses have to put 15 percent on their GST accounts they will know that their precarious businesses are really under threat of failure. I have had conversations leading up to this Budget day with many taxi drivers. We use taxis a lot these days and taxi drivers said they were very worried leading up to this Budget. 
I had my first post-Budget conversation with a taxi driver in the dinner break before I came back to the House. He said to me that when he had heard John Key say people should not be envious of the wealthy for receiving much bigger tax cuts then he was he was reminded of the expression “Let them eat cake.” He was a very very intelligent and capable taxi driver. Tonight he said that if there was a Bastille he would storm it; that is what he said to me tonight. That was absolutely extraordinary and I said to him that I would quote him in the House tonight. He said that was great and he would down tools and storm the Bastille—he would switch the key off in his taxi and he would storm the Bastille—if we had a Bastille to storm. That taxi driver gets something that John Key simply does not get: it is not tax that is holding back incomes in this country; it is wages and it is the income-earning potential of our small to medium sized enterprises sector. That is what holds New Zealand back yet this Budget does nothing to increase wages and it has nothing to do with improving the productive capacity and the earning ability of our small to medium sized enterprises sector. 
My taxi driver tonight knew the figures; he knew that Paul Reynolds was to receive over $6000 more in his pay packet every week. He knew that the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers were to receive hundreds of dollars extra a week in their pay packet. He did not know what the minimum wage earner would receive. He did not know that because the minimum wage earner— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this debate is robust; this is a tax debate. But inane endless barracking as the speaker is trying to speak even though the member tried to take advantage of the microphone to combat it is beyond the pale. Robustness is fair enough but inane barracking is for the street. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member but I did call for order in the House. I say to people that this place can become a bit excitable on occasions but members have a right to free speech. Free speech should be able to be heard. Of course we invite interjections and I am sure the Lianne Dalziel responds to them and likes the cut and thrust of the debate but it should not drown her out. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: What my taxi driver did not know was how much someone on the minimum wage would receive which is that such a person will receive an extra $4 a week. Someone who earns five times the minimum wage will receive over $50 a week. Five times $4 is $20 so why is someone in that position to receive over $50? My taxi driver has worked it out—this is a terribly unfair Budget and the bill that is before the House today is very unfair. 
The last thing that I ask is why this is being done under urgency. This legislation is to take effect from 1 October and today is only 20 May. We should have time for the bill to have a short period at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and for public feedback to be given on it. Why are we not to have any public feedback? The Government does not want it. It does not want to hear from the public on this issue; it does not want to hear a single word. This is a tax swindle not a tax switch.