Nash Stuart: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19019] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Is it not interesting—John Boscawen said the ACT Party was formed 18 years ago. Well it held its breath for 18 years and it turned blue. That is what happened; it turned blue. The party has given up on everything it once stood for and John Boscawen even admitted that he does not agree with anything in the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill but he will vote for it. What does that say? Well maybe I should say that blue is the wrong colour. Maybe yellow is the right colour. After 15 years of not even getting close to power ACT had to pull back Sir Roger Douglas. He had to come out of retirement to save the ACT Party. I feel a little bit sorry for Sir Roger. He was enjoying his retirement. He had put the old version of KiwiSaver in place. It would have been a fantastic scheme. 
But I must admit there are a couple of points—and members will not hear me say this very often in this House—on which I agree with John Boscawen. The first point is that this Budget is a hope Budget. The figures behind this Budget do not stack up. Why do I say that? Because I am the Labour spokesperson on revenue. I have dealt with the Inland Revenue Department on a number of issues and I have found it to be absolutely brilliant in its statistics and its advice. The advice the Inland Revenue Department gave to the Government on tax in this Budget differed by $4 billion less from the advice the Government received from Treasury. The Inland Revenue Department advice differed from the advice from Treasury by $4 billion over 5 years. That is a lot of money in anyone’s language. 
I do not know what the Treasury figures were based on but goodness me we should be very concerned. Amy Adams stood up and I agreed with her on one thing: things need to be done differently. Labour agrees with that. Labour knows that the country cannot afford to keep borrowing $380 million a week. That is not sustainable. A $16 billion deficit is simply not sustainable and something has to be done about that. Amy Adams said that it is about giving choices. This Government had choices but it spent $25 billion on tax cuts. That was the wrong choice. This Government also cut KiwiSaver. 
I will give the House a quote from John Key. He refused to rule out further cuts to KiwiSaver. When he was asked whether it was the end of the cuts to KiwiSaver he would not rule out further cuts. In Auckland today after addressing a business audience he said “You learn in life I guess to rule nothing out.” When he was asked whether he could rule out further cuts to KiwiSaver he said that he would not rule them out. He said “You learn in life I guess to rule nothing out.” Well I think Mr Key needs to come straight. He needs to tell the people of New Zealand exactly what he wants to do with KiwiSaver. At the moment he has cut $10. How much more? He says he will not rule anything out. Well how much more? What is not ruled out? Will it be $20? Will he take away the $1000 head start? What will he do? 
There are a couple of points I would like to make in rebuttal to a couple of Government members. Craig Foss stood up in this House and had the nerve to tell New Zealanders that they were better off because of low interest rates. Well I can inform him and this House that New Zealand has the highest business lending rates of any country in the OECD. How is that helping business? Those figures are from the IMF; those are not Labour figures. New Zealand has the highest figures for business lending in the OECD. What has that Government done about it? Absolutely nothing. There is absolutely no plan whatsoever. 
I will tell the House where the Treasury forecasts came from—that is the forecasts that differed from the advice of the Inland Revenue Department by $4 billion. They were based on the creation of 170000 new jobs. That is what that forecast was based on. When Mr English was asked today where the jobs were going to come from he could not tell the people of New Zealand— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Cycleway? 
STUART NASH 
: What did that create? Was it 60 or 100 jobs? It was certainly not 170000. The tax revenues based in this Budget based on these rates are not achievable. They are simply not achievable. Mr English said that commodity prices are booming—they are going to come in the sectors that sell commodities. Well I can tell this House that the opposite happens and I will give members an example. In the forest industry there are record commodity prices. What is happening? We are selling unprocessed logs offshore. Domestic processors simply could not afford to buy those logs. They are closing down. Jobs are lost. Let us talk about the farming sector. It is crippled under $42 billion worth of debt. Thank goodness for record payouts! We may see a little bit of tax coming from that. 
No one wants to see a more profitable farming sector than I do. Mr Ardern stood up in this House and he told us the boundaries of his electorate. He said that he came from a poor electorate a rural electorate. That is true. That was our point. The fact is that the industry that describes itself as the backbone of this country is in serious financial trouble to the point where the dairy industry pays only $26 million in tax and where 75 percent of dry stock farms earned $20000 or less. Over half of those farms made a loss. That is a debate that we need to have as a country. It is also a very very powerful argument for investing in the productive economy. Do we see any of that in this Budget? No. Was there any investment or tax incentives for research and development? No none whatsoever. The plan is in this bill and what is that plan? Cutting KiwiSaver. That is the plan to drive this country out of economic woes. Well it does not work. 
The other plan is to cut the Working for Families entitlements for about 110000 Kiwis—no not Kiwis 110000 New Zealand families. Those families are struggling and that is why Working for Families gave them a little bit of a lift-up. In the Hawke’s Bay economy $120 million worth of Working for Families entitlements goes towards helping those who need a lift-up. Mr Dunne was the Minister of Revenue when the Working for Families scheme was put in place. Mr Dunne knows how important it is to New Zealand families that they can have a little bit of a lift-up a little bit of a hand. Those are the families that will spend money in our communities in our shops but now that money will not be spent because it is being cut. Amy Adams has the nerve to stand up in this House and say that the average reduction in Working for Families entitlements is only $4 a week and that it is not much. It may not be much to Amy Adams but $4 a week—I know this is dreadful—is actually a bit of money to a lot of New Zealand families. It buys bread. It can buy some milk. It buys the necessities. For someone like Amy Adams who is out of touch $4 does not matter. But it does matter to a lot of Kiwi families. To say that it does not matter shows just how out of touch she is. I find that quite insulting. 
I will give a quote from Bill English about Michael Cullen. Bill English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.” Dr Cullen left this country in fantastic shape—nine Budgets all in surplus. This bill is not good for New Zealanders.