Katene Rahui: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11188. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The confidence and supply agreement the Maori Party has with the Government requires us to vote in support of the tax changes that the Government proposes. We well know that without the supply of funds the Government cannot function so from the outset of this legislation it was always quite simple: if we voted against the legislation we would effectively be voting against the hefty achievements that were announced yesterday. Amongst them are Whanau Ora Whare Oranga Ake Maori tourism and enterprise and the Youth Guarantee for 16 and 17-year-olds as well as other generic initiatives such as the $91.8 million worth of support to the early childhood sector targeting low socio-economic communities—of which many will be Maori and Pasifika—or the $90 million allocated to the Community Response Fund. That was a price too dear for our constituents to pay. 
As a party we have been talking with our members and our constituents ever since the Prime Minister mooted the increase in GST. We have received back a very clear very strong message to honour the agreement we made with the Government to vote in favour of the changes and to continue to get all the wins we can. No matter how strongly we feel as individuals ultimately as a party built on kaupapa Maori the wishes of the group prevail over those of any individual. That is the expression of kotahitanga. 
As we have said throughout this debate we appreciate the rationale for why tax changes are necessary and we have some sympathy with that view. We support the notion that it is our collective responsibility to clear the heavy burden of debt that our generation has built up and not leave it to the next generation to clean up. This is consistent with our kaupapa of manaakitanga whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga. 
There are three key planks to the Maori Party’s economic policies: tax relief for those on the lowest incomes small business development and better targeting of Government funding to achieve positive outcomes for Maori. With Whanau Ora and an additional $9 million invested into Maori exporter firms and tourism operators to grow their businesses we are confident that two of those three key planks are well on the way. But we are not a “two out of three” party. We are not satisfied that the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill has delivered what we needed it to deliver to close the gap and support those on lower incomes. 
I am proud to confirm that we will not shirk the responsibility of continuing to promote the need for protection for those on the lowest incomes and in particular addressing the unacceptable levels of child poverty evident in Aotearoa. The entire country will suffer if the number of children living in poverty continues to rise. We agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government could have used the opportunity of the tax reforms to improve incomes for beneficiaries with children by immediately extending the in-work tax credit to all low-income families. That did not happen despite the 2 percent lift in spending on benefits superannuation Working for Families and the student allowance. The problem is that no matter how the other side of the House may paint it up the Working for Families package has always been highly selective and in doing so it leaves about 220000 children behind. These are largely the children whose parents do not meet the paid work hours requirement and/or are on benefits. No matter the crocodile tears shed now by that side this decision was made by the previous Government. Of these children about 150000 live in families experiencing severe and significant hardship. These families miss out on at least $60 a week for their children. Labour had 9 years to clear it up and it did not. 
It gets worse. The costs of poverty-related disease afflict the nation in many ways. Estimates suggest that up to $136 million is spent every year on the costs of hospitalisation and deaths from diseases such as rheumatic fever meningococcal disease whooping cough viral hepatitis and tuberculosis which are all preventable and were not dealt with under the previous Government. 
In this context I assure the House that we in the Maori Party will continue to advocate hard for taking GST off healthy food. I want to let the House know that there has been a tremendous groundswell of support for my bill to remove the goods and services tax from healthy food. I have received letters of support from amongst others the Maori Women’s Welfare League and the Federation of Country Women’s Institutes. I believe that all members will have this week received a letter of endorsement for my bill from Dr Gay Keating the chief executive of the Public Health Association of New Zealand. She alerts MPs to the research from the University of Auckland that showed that when GST was removed there was an 11 percent increase in the buying of healthy food. She went on to say— 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I hope this is a point of order about the order of the House. 
Brendon Burns 
: I thought we were talking about the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill not a GST reduction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that it is unacceptable to this House to take a point of order to interrupt the flow of a speech. We have already had one example of that. The speeches in this debate have been quite broad ranging and if the member is going to raise points of order on Government members about the wide-ranging nature of speeches the member should also do so on his own benches. I just want to say—[ 
Interruption 
] I have not finished yet. It is unacceptable to take points of order to interrupt a member’s flow of speech. I find that that point of order is in that particular category. I say to members that they are entitled to have their speech of 10 minutes. If they break the rules of the House that is fair enough. But if they are speaking in the same tenor as that member’s own party has spoken without complaint then the point of order is not fair enough. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you came into the House and took the Chair you made the point that you wanted a higher level of decorum in the debate. I have been with a great deal of interest trying my best at short range to listen to the member’s contribution. But continuous barracking—for instance from Mr Darren Hughes—has made it near impossible to hear the member’s speech. I think the House owes the member concerned the dignity of its actually being able to hear the rest of her speech. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I will not take any more points of order on this matter. I say to the member that I could hear the member speaking. Yes I said that about the decorum of the House. The member you referred to was not barracking; he was asking a line of disjointed questions but they were questions. Barracking is something different. Had he been engaged in simply barracking I would have stopped him but he was not. Whether or not the member thought they were good questions is another matter. That is the point. I say that the point has been well made. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not wishing to challenge your ruling but I ask you to just consider this point: as I heard it the member opposite was starting to traverse another bill which will be coming before Parliament quite soon. I think that when we are debating the Budget that is the issue that should be before the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that whenever members stand up and say that they are not going to challenge my ruling the fact is that they do exactly that. When you concluded your comments I thought: “QED my case is proved beyond all doubt.” You were challenging my ruling. I say to the member that if a member is speaking about a bill and there are other related issues I think it is fair enough for the member to pull those issues in as long as it is not the substance of their speech. The member made a few references to it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We’re all going to be doing that don’t worry. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member can get picky about it but I am not going to be as picky as that about it. If the member Mr Mallard wants to get up I would say to him that nearly every contribution that he made during the Committee stage was outside of the strict Standing Orders of the Committee stage. He made no reference at all to the actual substance the nuts and bolts of the bill. Instead— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh read the  
Hansard 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will. We had great dissertations about 1984 and Roger Douglas I heard with much interest and a personal reflection. Let us not get too prissy about this. We have had what I think is a very good debate; it has been quite wide ranging. We have had rewrites of history we have traversed economies around the world we have had various reviews of 1984 and it has all been pretty good stuff. Let the member continue with her speech. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Dr Keating spoke about taking GST off healthy food by saying: “Those benefits include helping all New Zealanders improve their diet particularly families on lower incomes which are likely to be harder hit by any increase in GST. Supporting Ms Katene’s bill would be a great move towards increased fairness. It would also be a great start towards lowering the high rate of avoidable disease hospital admissions and premature deaths that plague lower-income families.” 
This proposal is part of the long-term economic outlook that we believe any responsible Government must plan for. We advocate for taking GST off food on the grounds that GST hits low-income people disproportionately. Removing GST from healthy foods may be one way of encouraging healthier living as well as supporting the many families who are currently struggling to provide just the basics. I know that some concerns have been raised about the cost of such a proposal but I think those who are sceptical need to look closer at the figures before they judge. Analysis of the Statistics New Zealand  
Household Economic Survey (Income): Year Ended June 2008  
estimated that annual GST on all fruits and vegetables sold to New Zealand households was just $167 million. If we were to take off GST from all dairy products fresh fruit and vegetables the total cost would be $302 million. Either way it is not insurmountable. 
If members are still in any doubt about the value of taking GST off food I think they would benefit from a close reading of a recent article by Gordon Campbell. He debunks some of the prevalent myths that have built up reassuring cynics that if compliance is an issue we should look to Australia which operates its food exemptions so smoothly and cost-effectively that compliance is no longer an issue. He also identified the fact that the Australian Taxation Office has established a computerised model that makes GST food and beverage compliance extremely easy to manage. It would be great if the GST advisory panel that Mr Dunne has announced today could be asked to look at this model and to provide us with some advice about how the model could work in our setting. 
The other finding that the Campbell article reported on was the results of a major New Zealand research study released in March. The research proved that if supermarket customers were given a 12.5 percent price discount an almost dollar for dollar higher investment in healthy food will result and will still be observable 6 months later. In other words cutting GST on food will result in lasting health benefits. To quote Mr Campbell: “The question then is not why do it—but why not do something so easy so readily manageable by business so justifiable on grounds of social justice and so likely to deliver practical health benefits to the community?”. I cannot help but be thrilled about the strength of support that is building for the move to take GST off food.