Woods MeganDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage so that we can get into some of the detail of this bill and examine what is actually in here. In particular I want to speak to my colleague Jacinda Ardern's amendment and the changes that that amendment proposes to bring to the legislation.Let us look at what is actually happening in this bill. There are three things that this Budget is proposing to do. There is the increase in the accommodation supplement which does not require legislation because that can happen by Order in Council and that is something that Labour accepts needs to happen. We do not think it is a long-term solution. We think that the reason we have got ourselves into this situation is that we have a Government that has failed to address a housing crisis so now we are forced to simply do a stopgap band-aid measure of putting up the accommodation supplement. But we accept that there are people who are struggling to get by and pay their rent and so that is something that we support.In terms of the second measure—one that is covered in this legislation—it is the Working for Families package. We have been quite clear throughout this debate that we support the general direction of the changes to the Working for Families package. Working for Families was—we will remind those members over on the other side of the Chamber who seem to have historical amnesia this morning—a Labour initiative because we recognised that Working for Families was a much more precise instrument for getting extra money to those who most needed it rather than the very blunt instrument of the taxation system. So we accept the general direction of this measure and what my colleague's amendment does is proposes to separate out this measure from the changes to taxation.Let us actually look at the taxation measures in there. Brett Hudson the member opposite seems to have become an overnight disciple of Max Rashbrooke but if he actually went and read what Max Rashbrooke is saying what he is saying is that most of the benefit is being delivered to low and middle income families through the Working for Families package through the increase to the accommodation supplement and not through the changes to the taxation system.The first two measures are measures that Labour will support. Why we will not support this legislation is that for the 50 percent of people who earn the lowest incomes in this country they receive 20 percent of the benefit of the tax measures in this legislation. Let us flip that around the other way. The 50 percent of New Zealanders who earn the highest incomes receive 80 percent of the benefits of the taxation measures in this legislation. That is not something that we see as being the way to target the people who are struggling the most and who need the support. That is a blunt instrument. This is—let us make no bones about it—a regressive taxation package that a progressive party such as Labour could never support.What we want to see is that we would address the deficits in our country. We would address the fact that that plumber or that sparky whom Alastair Scott the member who just sat down was talking about probably cannot get on a waiting list in the health system because this is a Government that has taken $1.7 billion out of our health system over the last 8 years. The child of that plumber or that sparky is probably in an overcrowded classroom because this is a Government that has failed to address the infrastructural needs of our educational system. That plumber or that sparky could well be struggling to find a house that they can afford to buy because this Government has given up on the dream of homeownership for middle New Zealand. It is not something that those members think that ordinary New Zealanders should have access to. It is something that only the very wealthy can aspire to under this Government's thinking and that is not something that a Labour Government sees as being a good use of $1.9 billion worth of spending—giving 80 percent of the benefit to the top 50 percent of income earners in this country.We recognise that there are many people in those middle income brackets who are struggling to buy a house and we want to support those people. One of the things that these changes to taxation do nothing to address is the fact that people need to live in warm dry homes. So rather than having a spend-up of $1.9 billion with 80 percent of the benefit going to the top 50 percent of income earners in this country Labour has a different proposal. What we want to do is help those people who have bought their first house or even their second or third house if that house is not insulated is not warm is not dry and does not have a good heating source. This Government has cut any kind of support for families that own their own home because it seems to think that people who own their own home do not deserve any help to ensure their home is warm and dry. It has cut that assistance but Labour will put that back. That is a much better use of the $1.9 billion that is outlined in this bill.So what we are asking the Government members opposite to do is support Jacinda Ardern's amendment to split out the measures and split out the changes to the Working for Families package because despite the rhetoric that you are hearing from the other side these are measures that by and large with some changes Labour does support. We recognise that that is a way of delivering benefit to families—something that we have always believed from the time that we invented that scheme and put it in place. We are asking members to support Jacinda Ardern's amendment so that we can examine the tax measures and the changes to Working for Families as separate initiatives because that is what they should be.If this Government was genuine about actually wanting to deliver to the most in need it would not try to hide its tax cuts where 80 percent of the benefit goes to the top 50 percent of income earners behind the smokescreen of making a change to the Working for Families package. It would section out those clauses and it would allow them to be debated and decided as two separate packages.Let us be very clear about the quantum of money that we are speaking about here. Let us imagine this is a cake—the package that is being put into place. One-seventh of that cake is going towards changes to the accommodation supplement one-seventh of that cake is going towards changes to the Working for Families package and five-sevenths of it is going towards spending on tax cuts—tax cuts where 80 percent of the benefit goes to the top 50 percent of income earners. So when we hear the rhetoric from members opposite about how they are trying to help low income earners that is not the case. That is not something that the tax changes are doing.The Working for Families change is fine. But support my colleague's amendment to this bill and allow those two measures to be drawn out separately in order for us to have a real discussion about taxation and Working for Families as two separate measures which they should be.