Bishop ChrisClauses 1 and 2CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Chair Williams. Well I haven't had the opportunity to take a call so far in this debate and—Hon Member: Lazy lazy lazy.CHRIS BISHOP: Well so many of my erstwhile colleagues were so keen to speak on the substantive parts of this bill and what a terrible bill it has been. But I want to make a few suggestions now we come to the title and the commencement clauses about what this bill should actually be called because the name Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill is a prosaic and boring title for the bill.What this bill should really be called is the Families Package (Free Money for Millionaires) Bill" because the Best Start package gives free money to everyone who has a baby in that first year. Members opposite have been hilarious about the benefits—or the non-benefits—of universality and targeted assistance during the debate. We heard Dr Webb the member for Christchurch Central standing up earlier and lauding the benefits of this highly targeted social assistance—except this is not targeted; this is universal and it's completely untargeted.It should also be called the "Families Package (Untargeted Generous Spending) Bill" because the winter energy payment is the exact opposite of targeted assistance. We should also call it the "Families Package (Spaghetti of Entitlements) Bill" because what is concerning about this is just the further complication of an already complicated taxation and benefit system. We're reintroducing the independent earner tax credit. That credit that the National Government repealed in the 2017 Budget—well that's coming back in with all the complications that it creates. You're going to have to apply for it; most people don't.Then we've got the baby bonus as well and Steven Joyce's amendments that were put in the earlier part of the debate on this bill to roll the baby bonus the Best Start package into the Working for Families tax credits.Alastair Scott: Very sensible.CHRIS BISHOP: "Very sensible" my colleague Alastair Scott says. Those were opposed by the Labour Party for no good reason. We never heard a real reason why we needed to create a whole new entitlement the Best Start scheme and so we have another spaghetti of entitlements. Look the system is complicated enough as it is already and the National Government in the last Budget started the process—the very worthwhile process—of starting to simplify a complicated system and now we're getting just more spaghetti of entitlements.This should also be called the "Families Package (Less Money for 1.2 Million Kiwis) Bill". That is the really regrettable part about this bill because it reverses those tax cuts that came into effect—or were going to come into effect on 1 April 2018—and it takes away $1060 per year from the average Kiwi on the average wage. That is really disgraceful.We should also call it the "Families Package (Regressive and Inequitable) Bill" because that is actually what the bill is. I think it is regressive. This Government talks a lot about how it wants to be a progressive reforming transformational Government. Well what is progressive—what is progressive—about taking money from people on the average wage to give it to students going off to university who would otherwise have gone to university and who over the course of their working life will get an income premium from the degrees that they get that far exceeds the value of the loan that they take out? What is progressive about that? That is regressive. That is inequitable. That is regressive and inequitable because those who go on to tertiary education benefit hugely from that education and we on this side of the Chamber think it's fair that they pay for a bit of that. Isn't it interesting—what was the first move of this Government? They talk a lot about child poverty reduction. That's been a theme of the last nine years. The Prime Minister is the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. What was the first thing they did? What was their first big spending promise once they came into office—the first serious spending effort that they put into place? It was hundreds of millions of dollars—billions of dollars—on a tertiary education package on fees free. More money for 18-year-olds from wealthy areas to go off to university for kids who would otherwise go to university anyway; not on child poverty reduction but on fees-free tertiary education. This bill is regressive it's inequitable and we should rename it so it reflects the actual accuracy of what this package actually entails."