Robertson Grant: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11174. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The title of this bill the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill is an anodyne one is it not? But I think we need to look deeper than at just the title to see what this bill really means. I think that a more appropriate title would be the “Taxation (Cake Stalls for Crayons) Bill” because that is what will be happening in early childhood centres all around New Zealand. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Four percent operations grants. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Ms Goodhew that early childhood centres all around New Zealand are now thinking about how they will make up that deficit. The priority in this bill is tax cuts for the wealthy not early childhood education. Early childhood centres all around New Zealand know and parents reading the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning all know that their early childhood education is at risk. Those cuts of $400 million over 4 years—$400 million over 4 years—will have an impact on the quality of early childhood education services. The cuts will have an impact on access to early childhood education. 
I ask what could be more important than that. This is not a Budget where Bill English came down and said that we were in a recession and that we had to pull back. No this was a Budget where he thought he could be generous. And who did he decide to be generous to? He was generous to people who already had had three tax cuts from this Government. He was generous to them but took money out of early childhood education. 
That is an absolute outrage because one option now available to early childhood centres is that they will probably get rid of their trained teachers. But I ask what good that will do for early childhood education in New Zealand. Other options potentially are that centres might have to cut back on hours or try to raise some money some other way. We had someone on the news last night saying that they will have to do fund-raising to buy paper. They will be fund-raising to buy paper. That is why this bill should be called the “Taxation (Cake Stalls for Crayons) Bill” because that is effectively what this taxation bill will mean. Those early childhood centres rather than focusing on the quality of the education they are delivering and ensuring that trained teachers are there and giving children in New Zealand the best possible start in life will be forced to be out there raising money or cutting back on quality teachers. In many cases some parents simply will not be able to enrol their children and that is what people are already saying in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today. 
Another title could be the “Taxation (Field of Broken Promises) Bill”. Let us be absolutely clear: National went into the election in 2008 saying that there would be no increase in GST. Mr Key can dance on the head of a pin and say he was saying that if a National Government had a deficit or say he was talking in some other way. But he stared down the barrel of that camera and told New Zealanders that there would be no increase in GST when National came into Government. That promise has been broken and that is why this bill should be renamed the “Taxation (Field of Broken Promises) Bill”. 
Another promise was made that there would be no borrowing for tax cuts but that is exactly what we are seeing today. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is what we are seeing I say to Dr Nick Smith. If we are to borrow money which we may well need to do I ask whether it should not be in things where we are getting a return on an investment. Should it not be in making sure that we have investment in education and in research and development? That would be real investment and that should not be broken down. That would be real proper investment in ensuring we had research and development that grew companies and that grew our economy but that is yet another broken promise within this bill. 
Then there is the broken promise on public services which is another reason why this bill should be renamed. This Government came in saying that it would cap but not cut public services but it has continually cut them. In this Budget Bill English tells us there is $1.8 billion of low-priority spending. That “low-priority spending” is in tertiary education it is in early childhood education and it is in health. Those are areas where this Government thinks there is low-priority spending. That is another broken promise and it is another reason to rename this bill. Public services in New Zealand have to be rebuilt time and time again by Labour Governments who come in on the back of National Governments that know they can get away with undermining public services while delivering tax cuts. This is not a Budget about the long-term future of New Zealand; this is a Budget about short-term political thinking from National. It is not good for the economy of New Zealand and it is not good for the society of New Zealand. 
We could also rename the bill the “Taxation (Rob Peter to Pay Paul) Bill”—literally to pay Paul Reynolds—and that in fact is what this bill will be doing. It ensures that people like Paul Reynolds who have already benefited significantly from pay rises and tax cuts once again are the main beneficiaries of this bill. The main beneficiaries are not the strugglers in New Zealand; they are not the people who have been facing higher power prices and who are now facing higher GST.