Robertson Grant: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18959] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 This is my first opportunity to participate in the Committee stage of the debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill and we come now to Part 2. It is worth noting that the discussion we were just having on Part 1 often impacted on both the specific changes to Working for Families and to KiwiSaver. As we begin the discussion of these changes in Part 2 we need to look at the wider context in which they are set in this Budget. Essentially these are the big changes for National. The big vision for National in this Budget is to cut Working for Families and to cut KiwiSaver. That is it. There is no big vision about growing the economy. There is no big vision about innovation in our economy. There is no attempt to say how we will create the jobs that will keep New Zealanders in New Zealand rather than going to Australia. Instead Part 2 of this bill which we debate under urgency cuts in to low and middle income earners’ income; it takes out income from 1.7 million KiwiSavers. That is what Part 2 does because this Budget has no vision and no plan; it is a defensive Budget. 
My colleagues on this side of the Chamber know that I am a fan of sport. For me this Budget from the Government’s point of view is all about the All Whites going out on the field to play a game of soccer and putting all of their players inside their own penalty area and having no one upfront trying to score any goals. That is what this Budget is about: it is a defensive Budget with no vision. We heard ambition for New Zealand a couple of years ago from John Key and Bill English. But instead as I sat and listened to the Budget speech yesterday I kept waiting for the plan for the things the Government was going to do. Yes there were going to be cuts. Yes we are living in tight financial times. Then we expect to hear the plan. But instead the plan is the cuts—that is it. There is nothing else. There is no vision for the future. There is as we see in Part 2 here simply cuts to Working for Families and to KiwiSaver. 
The promise that National delivered pre-Budget—and it is surprising that anyone would really believe promises that National delivers any longer after it increased GST when it said it would not—is that it wanted to get at those people on Working for Families who are earning high income levels. It wanted to get at those people earning over $100000 because they should not be on Working for Families. National says those people are on a kind of middle-class welfare that we do not need. But the reality of the changes in Part 2 is that it kicks in for people earning as little as $36000 a year. It kicks in for the security guards who work around this building and other places. The level of pay they are getting means they are too rich to be supported. They are the people who do not deserve support for raising children. That is what this Budget says. That is what Part 2 says. 
This is not about high-income earners; this is about people who are currently struggling to meet the cost of living and they are being told that they are the people who have to bear the burden of the financial problems facing New Zealand. It is middle-income earners who have to bear that burden with the cuts to Working for Families. One of the things that are frustrating for people on this side of the House is that when Working for Families is presented it is presented as being about somebody who is on an income of $70000. Let us be absolutely clear—this is about family and household income. If a household has an income of $70000 that can be two earners each earning $35000 a year. If they are raising two children in that environment that is difficult at the moment. They are the people who are struggling to put healthy food on their table. They are the people who need support to ensure that those children get the kinds of opportunities in life that everyone in this House would want them to have. 
In Part 2 of this bill Working for Families has been cut for those people. It has been cut so the opportunities are simply not there for those people in the future. The problem is that the whole Budget is based upon fiction figment and this notion that there will be 170000 jobs. From where? From where will those jobs come? There are not 170000 jobs in rebuilding Christchurch. There are some jobs in that but there are not 170000. 
The Rugby World Cup gets a good play in the Budget in terms of economic growth. I hate to tell Mr Key and Mr English but the Rugby World Cup finishes in October. It will not be there in the future. The Rugby World Cup ends in October and that is it. That is the end of the plan for the growing of jobs. It is a figment. What is more is that jobs and growth projections in this Budget are based on nothing. Not only do we think so but the Inland Revenue Department thinks so and the Ministry of Social Development thinks so. As my colleague Stuart Nash said in the Part 1 debate there is a $4 billion gap between the forecast of what the people who actually collect the tax think they will get and Treasury which is making these bold heroic projections about growth. What is more the Ministry of Social Development is projecting that it will be paying out more and more in benefits at exactly the same time as Treasury thinks the number of people employed will be going up. There is a problem there. If Treasury’s projections and forecasts were accepted across the Public Service then the Ministry of Social Development would be forecasting the main benefit costs to go down. It is not forecasting that; it is forecasting benefit costs to go up. 
We have the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development saying that Treasury’s forecasts do not stand up. They are a figment. They are not real jobs because there is no plan to create those jobs in this Budget. There is nothing about skills nothing about increased research and development nothing about innovation and nothing about supporting exporters. This Budget is built on a fallacy of hope that there will be jobs in the future and no plan to get there. 
When we get to Part 2 we see that the big plan is based on cuts. Here is a message for National: cuts do not amount to a plan for the economy. It is a defensive attitude and not one that will help grow the economy. Why is it that time and time again with this Government when the belts have to be tightened it is those at the low and middle-income end who have to do the tightening? In the end that is about—and Part 2 is about—the fact that nothing has changed for National. It is still about trickle-down economics. It is amazing. The idea has been around for 30 years but it has not worked. It is not working yet we have another Budget presented to this House that is about a belief and a faith in trickle-down economics rather than a Government that will do something to help create jobs and to grow the economy. 
Part 2 tells us that Working for Families needs to be adjusted because it is not affordable at the moment. I say to National that those people on those low and middle incomes are being affected—for example the couple I was talking to last night. The husband is a security guard who works full time and the wife is an early childhood education teacher who works part time. They are trying to raise their children. They are losing as a result of these Working for Families changes. They are also KiwiSavers and they are losing out there as well. They are being hit twice. Their incomes are being hit while the people on the top tax rate continue to enjoy the benefits of tax cuts that were unaffordable which is part of the reason we have the deficit in front of us today. Make no mistake; this deficit in this Budget is National’s deficit. It is a deficit that it has created by its lack of an ability to help grow this country and by its short-sighted policies that are not about the long-term future and innovation of the country and that are not about skills. 
This Budget is based on a fallacy. It is based on a hope and a faith that jobs will be created. It is not based on a plan. In Part 2 the core of the Government’s policy is to cut Working for Families and KiwiSaver and to look tough. Where is the gain that goes with the pain? I do not see it. New Zealanders know we are in tight financial times. They all want to pull together and work but New Zealanders also fundamentally believe in fairness. They believe in fairness and they believe that it is important that we look after each other in times of need. When people are trying to bring up children who will be the future of this country they deserve support for that. Instead Part 2 of this bill delivers cuts to those very people in Working for Families and KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver is one of the things that we on this side of the House are proudest of because it put in place a regime that got New Zealanders saving. That is compromised by Part 2 of this bill.