Robertson Grant: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2443. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Normally the second reading would be taking place after a select committee process had this bill the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill been sent to a select committee. I wonder how many of what the regulatory impact statement tells us are the 68600 children receiving the tax credit that Mr Dunne has just told us that no one is getting whom Mr Dunne does not care about and I wonder how many parents of these 68600 children who are mentioned in the regulatory impact statement would have come to the select committee and said: “This tax credit is actually very good. This is about helping to teach our children about the value of work the importance of paying tax but that when you haven’t reached a certain income threshold you can actually get that money back.” That would have been something that might have happened in the select committee. 
Is it not amazing that the Government’s big tax idea the first thing up straight after the Budget is to pick the pockets of paper boys and paper girls. That is the big big idea in taxation from this Government. We are not standing here tonight debating whether or not there should be a capital gains tax. We are not standing here tonight debating whether or not we should make the tax system fairer. No we are debating whether or not the Government should penny-pinch from children who are getting their income— 
Maggie Barry 
: Fruit and vege GST. What else have they dropped? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well Maggie Barry wants to start a debate about GST and about it going up to 15 percent. We could have had that debate but no we are not. We are not having a debate about a capital gains tax and we are not having a debate about actually taxing all income not just the income of actual workers but the income that people get from selling off their second homes and other capital gains that they make. We could be debating that. We could be debating how to broaden our tax base how to make sure we actually have a fairer tax system but instead the bill that comes in front of us tonight sets about picking the pockets of 68600 children. That is a ridiculous thing for this Government to be focusing on. It is pathetic penny-pinching. It has nothing to do with growing our economy and it has nothing to do with making our tax system fairer. Instead that is what the Government thinks is its No. 1 priority to come to the House with tonight. It is bizarre politics. 
But it fits with a Budget that has completely missed the point that has sent people over to Australia that has said to New Zealanders that this Government has no plans for growth this Government has lost all of its ambition and instead it wants to bring in a tax bill to get to 68600 children and the meagre income they get from doing this kind of work. The fact is that the Inland Revenue Department collecting that money which is a little bit of a bonus for those children at the end of the year the bringing of them into the workforce and enabling their understanding of how things work has to be got rid of. That is the kind of pitiful taxation bill that is in front of us tonight. 
I want to also refer to the student loan repayment changes. I do think that here we have an example of where the Government is finally getting around to doing something that we have recommended from day one. Mr Mallard was highly critical of the education standards of New Zealand that might lead to people actually using the repayment bonus scheme because it did not work for them. But it did turn out that some people did use it which is reasonably remarkable. The fact is that not very many of them did use it and actually it has not worked at all. 
If we want to go back just a little bit to when National brought in the policy in terms of a loan repayment bonus we can see some of the excited statements that were made at the time. We have a statement here that says: “We estimate that this measure will reduce repayment times of those who take up the bonus by 1.5 years and we believe that it will decrease the upfront cost of new lending to 39.4c. How could anyone vote against that?” Anne Tolley said that in I believe a brief period when she was the Minister for Tertiary Education before Steven Joyce came and took that portfolio off her. That is what she told us. She asked how anyone could vote against that. Well it will be interesting to see what Anne Tolley does tonight. Will she vote for the repeal of this thing that she said nobody could vote against because it was going to reduce the upfront cost of lending to 39.4c? Well it did not do that. It did not work at all in fact but Anne Tolley told us that. 
But it was not just Anne Tolley. We also heard in most earnest tones the following statement: “This bill is a significant step to encourage student loan repayment and more important to reduce the overall repayment times. The message very clearly is that our young people will be debt-free sooner”. Who said that? Louise Upston said that. She was up just after Anne Tolley extolling the virtues of the student loan repayment bonus. But there is one more person who got on his feet to proclaim the importance of this and he said: “I say to the House that this is a significant incentive for students to pay their loans earlier. I cannot fathom why anyone would oppose the introduction of such an incentive.” 
Hon Member 
: Who said that? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Peter Dunne said that. That is the Minister. That is the Minister who moved the bill today. That is actually a new record for Peter Dunne. Previously we have had Peter Dunne standing up in the House to repeal bills that he had put forward when he was a Minister in a Labour Government but I do believe that this is the first time that the Minister has come to repeal a bill that he put up when he was in a National Government. It is not about shortening repayment times; it is shortening Mr Dunne’s time to go back on what he has already done. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hardly a flip-flop; just a straight flop. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well yes Mr Mallard a complete flop. From 2009 to now Mr Dunne has turned round. He said that he could not fathom why anyone would oppose the introduction of such an incentive. Well I cannot fathom why it was introduced in the first place by Mr Dunne and here he is 3 years later as Mr Mallard said not a flip-flop just a flop. Louise Upston and Anne Tolley got up on their feet to tell us what a wonderful thing this is. Here we are straight after the Budget ready on this side of the House to debate the overall taxation system and what the fiscal policies should be but instead what we are debating is the National Government flip-flopping on something it did in 2009 and trying to take money out of the pockets of 68600 children. That is the best we have got from the National Government out of this Budget: a debate about things that those members did that they want to change 3 years later and petty penny-pinching from children in this country. 
We could be having a debate today about a capital gains tax. We could be having a debate today about superannuation and about savings. We could be doing those things. 
Todd McClay 
: We did that at the election. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Todd McClay says the election. I am not sure. I went to about 22 public meetings with my National Party opponent in Wellington Central and I am pretty sure he did not get up and say: “We’re going to take the money out of the pockets of paper boys and paper girls.” I might have missed it. Did any of my colleagues hear that? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No none of us heard that. Todd McClay said that there was an election. Mr McClay I think Rotorua might have turned on taking the money out of the pockets of 68600 children. I think it might have turned on that. If Mr McClay had been upfront with the voters of Rotorua and said that he was going to take money out of the pockets of paper boys and paper girls—68600 of them according to the regulatory impact statement—then I do not think Mr McClay or a host of other National MPs would be back here today. 
Clearly this is the most important taxation measure that this Government feels it needs to bring in front of the country. This is a ridiculous piece of legislation. This Government’s Budget is so poor that this is the best that it can do. This is the best that the National Government has got for New Zealand and it is simply not good enough.