Mahuta Nanaia: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18951] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am happy to speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill and in particular focus on Part 1 “Annual rates of income tax”. I listened very carefully to contributions from members of the Government. I came out with three very clear points. First the member Craig Foss promoted the idea that if one talks about something long enough maybe people will believe it. He made the point that 13 percent of people pay 51 percent of tax. If we take that tag line alone it explains exactly why most of the tax cuts go to top income earners. But I do not think people are convinced by Mr Foss’s argument. In fact I think they are more perplexed with that rationale because it justifies the unfairness of the current tax system and the fact that the Government is prioritising investment that does not benefit a lot of people. 
Then I listened to Mr Paul Quinn. He operates by the standard that if he talks loud enough then maybe people will hear him. But we all know that once the decibels start to rise people turn off. In fact I could not quite figure out what point he was making with regard to Part 1 of the bill. Then I listened to the member Chris Tremain. He operates by the edict that if he says it often enough then maybe even he will believe it. One of the points he made was just how much middle-income earners are benefiting under this Government’s tax cuts. 
I present a response particularly in relation to Mr Tremain’s points about income tax for middle-income earners. He highlighted these groups specifically: nurses policemen teachers wharfies and builders. He made the point that under Labour they were paying a higher marginal tax rate and under National they are not. Let me say this: those same people are parents those same people have kids those same people utilize public services and those same people are saying—we are listening to them—that they did not bet on the rate of GST increasing on paying more over the counter for their kai or on rising petrol prices. They say that when they take their kids to the doctor the after-hours costs are as much for them as they are for anyone else and they are still paying the mortgage. Some of them are paying higher rents particularly in areas like Auckland. 
Those nurses policemen teachers wharfies and builders are making the same noises in terms of concerns about where this Government has got its priorities wrong. Even though they are middle-income earners and they have a lower marginal tax rate they have to pay exorbitant costs at the other end because this Government has its priorities in the wrong place. 
The Government has ripped out the guts of the public health sector. It says it is moving resources to the front line. It says it is moving resources to the front line but backroom functions cannot be absorbed by front-line staff. Those members might not like that but they know it is true. Those middle-income families are parents they have kids they are paying the same costs as low-income families and they have the same concerns: paying more for their kai paying more for petrol and paying more for after-hours general practitioner services—paying more and getting less. Their wage is worth less under this Government than it ever was before. Why? Because they are feeling the pay at the other end. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Rubbish. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The member for Hamilton West may say it is rubbish but we can find middle-income earners in the Hamilton West electorate who are making very clear complaints about after-hours health care because they have to pay more. If they go to Waikato Hospital albeit to a well-developed accident and emergency service they have to wait for 8 hours so rather than wait for 8 hours they pay $69 for after-hours health care. 
I go back to Part 1 of this bill. The Government’s members are saying it long enough loud enough and often enough but they are still not convincing middle and low income earners that their tax cuts are benefiting them in the long run. The concerns we hear day after day show that prices and the cost of living are higher for middle and low income families. 
Those members are very quiet now. Their heads are down now. They know that the cost of living—[ 
Interruption 
] They know that when they talk about middle-income earners and the tax cuts that have been promoted by this Government they are not talking about the costs at the other end. I challenge members of the National Government to talk about the costs at the other end. They talk about tax cuts at the front end but not the costs accrued by those same families at the other end. Policemen nurses teachers wharfies and builders are parents. They have kids and they have mortgages. All those costs are adding up. The price and the cost of living for those same families— 
Paul Quinn 
: 20000 more elective surgeries. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: There we go again. That member operates by the edict that if he says it loud enough maybe people will hear him. They actually turn off. 
Those people are parents. They have children and they are paying at the other end. I see the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction smiling because he knows exactly what I am talking about. Government members might be able to promote the benefits of tax cuts at the one end but they cannot justify the increased pressure of costs on families at the other end. That is what we are saying. The tax promotion that this Government is making is creating an inherent imbalance and unfairness. National is creating greater inequality between middle and low income families. 
Government members say that the top 13 percent pay 51 percent of the taxes. They are trying to justify it so that that 13 percent get most of the benefits. People can see through that. It does not matter whether members opposite talk long enough loud enough or often enough; people can see through that. They do not believe that the proposals at one end offering tax cuts are offset by the cost of living pressures at the other end. 
Paul Quinn 
: You’re still prattling on about the same things you were in the previous 2 years. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I will say it again and again because members on this side of the Chamber are presenting those issues. We know that the cost of living pressures are not being alleviated by the solutions that the member Paul Quinn is promoting in this Chamber. 
I am happy to speak to Part 1 and to reject the proposition that it is promoting better opportunities for middle-income families. There is just no balance between tax cuts for middle and low income families at one end and the increasing pressure of costs at the other end. There is a greater imbalance greater unfairness and greater inequality in the treatment of those groups of people: nurses policemen teachers wharfies and builders. I am happy to speak to Part 1.