Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Budgets are in the words of American theologian Jim Wallis moral documents. That is because they are about the choices that we make with the resources that we have to tackle the problems that we have and to unlock the opportunities that exist within our people. The problem with this bill—and I am going to go into some detail on this—is that when you actually get into the detail of it this Budget fails on all of those fronts in terms of making the right choices for New Zealanders given the issues that people in our country face today.One of the things we have heard a lot of from the Government benches over the course of this debate often with chests puffed out is that this is a package that supposedly really targets resources to those New Zealanders who need it most. We have heard that word over and over again—this is about targeting those New Zealand families who are doing it tough who have needs and who really need some additional assistance. What I want to do is go through the bill and look at just how closely this bill actually does target the limited resources we have and to test it—to then test it to see: does it actually meet the needs that we have does it actually resolve the problems we have and does it unlock opportunities for New Zealanders or not?Of course the answer is that it does not. There is a very simple statistic that demonstrates that. If we look at the mix of this package five-sevenths of it goes to the tax cuts which by definition are untargeted because every dollar of tax that you cut even if you cut at the bottom band goes to every single New Zealander in this country. Every single Government member sitting on those benches and every single Opposition member sitting on these benches benefits from those tax cuts. Can any member stand up in this Committee and tell me that that is a good example of targeting? Will anyone do it? I challenge any of the Government members to stand up in this Committee and tell me that it is a good example of targeting to give you a tax cut. Five-sevenths of this $2 billion - plus package go into the tax cut mix.We have heard a lot about Working for Families. We have heard a lot about the accommodation supplement changes. One-seventh of the changes in this bill go into Working for Families which is targeted and we support that part of the bill. That is why I am standing in support of Jacinda Ardern's tabled amendments. That actually enables us to target in the resourcing. That is why the last Labour Government set up Working for Families. We set up Working for Families which members on that side of the House and David Seymour yesterday called communism by stealth". It is a good way of targeting limited resources because it goes just to the people that you want it to go to unlike the tax cuts that are in this bill.Let us talk about the accommodation supplement changes as well—about $361 million going there. Of course that is welcome—of course that is welcome—but here are the facts. Back in 2007 which is when the accommodation supplement thresholds were last changed one person in Auckland would have received $145. These changes bring that up to $165. That is good but if you adjusted just for house price inflation they should be receiving $222. When the Government stands up and boasts about helping New Zealanders—and I note the member opposite talked about Max Rashbrooke's comments. Well if he read further into Max Rashbrooke's comments he would have seen that that is exactly what Max was saying: that this Government which has ignored the needs of New Zealanders over the last 9 years is now coming back in this Budget package and partly filling the pot up. It is not even adjusting for the real increases in costs that New Zealanders have faced and it is now asking to be treated with garlands and flowers and for people to be grateful for that. That is simply ridiculous.A three-person household in Auckland receiving $225 in accommodation supplement under the best set of circumstances will now receive $305; to cover just the increase in housing costs that should be $344 a week—that is just using the Reserve Bank's inflation calculator. So the Government has not even covered the increases in accommodation costs under its own watch. That is not meeting the needs of New Zealanders.I want to talk a bit about the independent earner tax credit which is of course done away with in clause 5 of the bill. I have got a question for the Minister in the chair Tim Macindoe about this actually—I posed it in my speech yesterday. It is actually a really important one because if we go to the bill itself—and we go to the notes that support the bill and this major major change which takes away an important tax credit for about 500000 New Zealanders—it tells us that 80 percent of those eligible claim the tax credit. It sort of justifies it by saying that 20 percent of the people who are eligible do not even claim it and that is one of the reasons that we are given for getting rid of this tax credit. Yet in the Minister of Finance's speech yesterday he said that only 30 percent of people claim it. When the Prime Minister then stood up he said that 33 percent of people claim it. And when he interjected yesterday in the middle of my speech Mr Bishop said that 32 percent of people claim it.I think that before members of this Committee vote on abolishing a tax credit that goes to 500000 New Zealanders and that as Mr Robertson said before will take the net benefit of any tax gains for the lowest income New Zealanders down to $1 per week—before members of this Committee vote on it we should hear from the Government about whether it is 80 percent of people who claim it 33 percent of people who claim it 30 percent of people who claim it or 32 percent of people who claim it. I have now heard four answers from the Government and they are vastly different. In the bill again it says that 80 percent of people claim it; in speeches Government members have said around about 30 percent of people claim it. When we get a chance I would really appreciate hearing from the Minister in the chair what the correct number actually is. That is important information that members in this House need before they vote on this bill.As I said at the beginning of my comments this comes down to choices. Tax bills are always about choices. We all understand that we have limited resources and when we go back and look at that tax package it is very clear that in the use of the limited resources that we have this Government and this bill fail that test of using those resources wisely. I have already explained how five-sevenths of the package is about the tax cuts. Let us delve further into that when we actually look at the bill because that breaks down in a way that shows that the choices that the Government is making in this bill are inequitable in themselves.Here is a very simple statistic: if you add up the tax gain for the top 10 percent of New Zealanders in this bill—the total tax gain—it is about $373 million; if you add up the tax gain for the bottom 50 percent of earners in New Zealand it is about $380 million—basically the same. In other words under the provisions of this bill the top 10 percent of earners get five times the benefit per person of the bottom 50 percent of earners. Let us go back to that word "targeting" that we have heard time and again from the Government benches and no doubt will hear in the contributions that are to come. How is that a good example of targeting the needs of low income New Zealanders when you are giving the same total tax gain of precious limited Government resources to the top 10 percent of earners that you are giving to the bottom 50 percent of earners—that you are giving the bottom 50 percent of earners?These are the choices that define Governments. If you want to define this Government it has made the wrong choices. It has made choices to spend resources to take this package which we could be doing so much good with and to target it that poorly. Seventy-five percent of the total benefit goes to the top 50 percent of earners. This is not a good example of targeting. If we are talking about tax—this is actually very important—we heard yesterday in the Minister of Finance's speech that the Government is booking $250 million of additional tax revenue from multinationals. Yet here we have got the tax bill in front of us and there is absolutely nothing to say how we are actually going to do that. You cannot book a quarter of a billion dollars of revenue and not actually say where it is coming from. Yet in this tax bill we are making choices to significantly advantage—in that $1.9 billion package—the top 10 percent of income earners while doing nothing about the multinationals which the Government concedes are ripping New Zealanders off to the tune of $300 million per year.There is a better choice. The better choice that is before all members today is to support Jacinda Ardern's amendment. It would mean that we can get the benefits that families need through the Working for Families package and then we could look at the resources that we collectively hold and are responsible for in this House and look at how we really allocate them to deliver fairness and opportunity in this country. A Labour Government would target them so that those families have more resources so that they have a decent and affordable house over their heads and so that they do not pay more for health and education. That is what we stand for and we reject this bill."