Seymour David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10364. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement made by John Key in 2004 regarding stealth taxation through bracket creep that the government “loves taxing the hard-working productive sector of New Zealand. It loves taking extra dollars off those people at every opportunity it can”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The statement made by the Prime Minister was not specifically about bracket creep; it was also focused on the significant personal tax rate increases that had just been introduced. But I do agree that the then Government did enjoy taxing the productive sector and hard-working New Zealand families. That is part of the reason we undertook the 2010 tax reforms: to cut the tax rates on businesses and hard-working families and to provide additional incentives to save work and invest. It is part of the reason this Government has a priority of reducing taxes further subject to fiscal conditions particularly for low and middle income earners.David Seymour: How does that square with the fact that by 2017 through stealth tax hikes through bracket creep this Government will have pinched an extra $2.1 billion from the back pocket of the New Zealand taxpayer since those 2010 tax changes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We could debate the figures. We are currently in a situation where inflation is very low. Since the 2010 tax cuts we have seen inflation of 5 percent and wage increases of 15 percent so the main reason people find themselves in higher tax brackets is wage increases. However there has been some effect from the 5 percent inflation over that 5-year period.David Seymour: Is not a period of low inflation the perfect time to make the shift and index tax brackets to inflation so that New Zealanders will not lose money to stealth taxation?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a matter of weighing up a range of objectives that the Government has. If we did not have any debt or any need to spend then it would be a lot easier to reduce taxes at will but we have to cover the spending obligations that the Government has. This Government has set a target on stopping debt rising and beginning to reduce debt as a proportion of the economy. In that context there has not really been the room to make the kinds of changes the member is talking about.David Seymour: In light of all finance Ministers complaining of fiscal pressure is this not really just another example of National campaigning from the right and governing from the left?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No National campaigned from the middle and is governed from the middle and that seems to be reasonably effective. The cost of fiscal drag since 2010 is about half of what the member said—about $1.3 billion per year. Just to put that in context this very moderate middle-stream Government has cut ACC levies by $2 billion per year since 2010 twice the amount of fiscal drag.David Seymour: I seek leave to table research from the Parliamentary Library showing that the cost of fiscal drag from 2010 to 2017 will indeed be $2.1 billion.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.