Twyford Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Twyford Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8910] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 As we sat in this House a week ago and listened to the Prime Minister mangle his reading of his speech to the House we could hear another sound apart from the mangling of those words. It was the sound of rushing air as New Zealanders’ expectations and hopes were deflated. 
This year was to be the year of governing boldly. The Prime Minister spent the days leading up to the Christmas holidays going out and briefing journalists about how this year was to be the year where he would shake off the shackles. He was going to do something he was going to be bold and he was going to unveil a plan for New Zealand. I think that “Governing Boldly” was part of a headline in  
North and South  
magazine. He was finally going to silence his right-wing critics—journalists like Fran O’Sullivan who had just got sick and tired of that do-nothing Prime Minister. He was going to show them that he was not in this job just for the fun of meeting Barack Obama. Well what a cruel deception! What did he deliver 1 week ago? It was a “non-plan” a medley of reheated old announcements and broken promises. 
Let us talk about unemployment. It is at levels not seen in this country for 16 years and record numbers of young people are in the dole queues. Our unemployment rate is 2 percent higher than that of our neighbours across the Tasman and the number of unemployed is growing at the fastest rate in a decade. But what does Paula Bennett say? She says we should not panic; there are jobs out there so we should not panic. I call that the  
Dad’s Army 
 approach to fighting unemployment: “Don’t panic Captain Mainwaring! Don’t panic!”. What did Paula Bennett say when the latest figures came out that showed there had been a huge increase in the number of young job seekers? She blamed it on a growing population. Whoops! She did not see that one coming. Well that is Paula Bennett; that is our Minister for Social Development and Employment. 
Mr Key talked about encouraging innovation skills and employment. Let us see what Mr Key said. He said: “I have also asked Ministers to look closely at … where we could do more to encourage innovation skills and employment.” Well how about not cutting the research and development tax credits? That would be a really good policy. How about not cutting teacher professional development in important areas like science? Yes that would be worth considering. We could also consider not gutting the Fast Forward scheme and not cutting tertiary scholarships like bonded merit Step Up and Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarships. 
Mr Key also said in his statement: “Science and innovation are therefore key elements of the Government’s economic agenda both this year and into the future.” Well how is this Government demonstrating its commitment to science and innovation? It has dumped $700 million in funding for innovation in the primary sector and has cut $300 million out of the research and development tax credits. That is how it is showing its commitment to innovation and economic development. 
This Government is very keen on the idea of three strikes but I think that the three strikes we should be thinking about are jobs strike one; innovation strike two; and tax strike three. Tax shows this Government’s absolute poverty of ideas. It promised an economic plan a strategy for growth but what did it deliver? It delivered the longest Dear John note in history addressed to the New Zealand public: “Tax cuts for the rich and the rest of you can go hang.” You see National knows only one tune; it sang it in Opposition and now it is singing it in Government. National cannot tell the difference between tax cuts for the rich and a growth plan for the New Zealand economy or else it thinks that New Zealanders are really dumb. Either way it will not work. 
If the Government raises GST it hits everybody but proportionately it hits low-income New Zealand workers and New Zealand families harder. Then the Government cuts income tax rates especially at the top end in such a way as to put $500 into the pocket of the Prime Minister every week and $2500 into the pocket of Paul Reynolds at Telecom but virtually nothing for anyone earning less than $48000 a year. Why would a Government inflict that on New Zealanders? Why would it push up the price of bread and milk when ordinary Kiwi families are struggling as it is to get through to the end of the week and have something left over? Why would it increase the power bills of Kiwis when an approaching winter will make it even harder for people to stay warm during those months? Why would a Government make it even harder for New Zealand families to fill up the car with petrol so that they can get to work every day? 
When we look at the Government’s plans on GST and take into account the calculations of the Tax Working Group we see that there is a projected net saving of only $200 million when the compensations that the Tax Working Group recommended are factored in. That shows that the GST increase is a sideshow; it will be destructive to Kiwi families. But that is not where the action is in this plan; the real action is to be found in the Government’s plan to cut the top tax rates and deliver a dividend to the wealthiest New Zealanders. Mr Key thinks that high-income earners pay an unfair share of income tax in this country. 
Well news flash! They pay a large proportion of income tax because they earn a larger proportion of income. The basic fundamental principles of progressive taxation have been the foundation of Government in New Zealand for 80 years yet this Government is intent on whittling it away. The top 3 percent of income earners pay approximately one-quarter of all income tax but they earn according to the Tax Working Group approximately one-fifth of all income. The cost of living is the issue that is preying on the minds of New Zealand families up and down the country and an increase in GST will hardly make their lives better. 
But spare a thought for Aucklanders who are staring down the barrel of a super-city that is likely to significantly increase their cost of living. A  
New Zealand Herald  
poll taken a couple of weeks ago showed that nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders believed that the super-city would lead to a substantial increase in their rates and some of them said it would probably lead to rates increases of up to 30 percent. It is hard to say with any certainty whether that will happen and the reason is that the Government has not given the people of Auckland any estimate of the costs of the transition process or any estimate of the likely cost of the new super-city or the rates burden. All they have told Aucklanders is that Auckland ratepayers will be picking up the tab. 
Mr Hide the self-styled “Minister for Ratepayers” does not talk too much these days about the cost savings of the Auckland super-city. We do not hear him saying much these days. But it is not just the rates that Aucklanders worry about in relation to the cost of living in the super-city. They would not be so grumpy about the super-city if they thought they were getting value for money but they know that when the super-city rolls out volumetric pricing for water across the city they will be getting a pig in a poke. Our analysis of comparative water pricing across Auckland indicates that if Metro Water pricing rates are applied across the city a family of four in west Auckland or South Auckland will pay an extra $700 a year for their water. 
Carol Beaumont 
: That’s on top of increased GST and increased accident compensation levies. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right. Michael Barnett the head of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry came out today with some stinging criticisms of the Government’s super-city plan. He is not alone and we will hear more in the coming days as the submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee are published. Is it any wonder that Aucklanders fear that their rates will go up while they watch local democracy go down the gurgler? 
I think Aucklanders would feel less grumpy if it was not for the fact that they see their local communities losing their voice and losing a say in local democracy. They see gerrymandered boundaries right across the city which is blatantly unfair. They see that the number of elected representatives in Auckland City has been cut in half at a time when local government unelected officials have grown by 30 percent in the last 5 years. They see the business of local government being wrapped up in corporate entities and their assets being readied for privatisation. That is no reassurance to Aucklanders that they are getting value for money.