Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well we will not be agreeing to this motion Mr Speaker. We'll be voting against it because this bill and what it represents is a slap in the face for the squeezed middle who are getting smashed by the cost of living crisis in this country. We've just come out of a Budget and everybody's looked at this Budget which has been the biggest-spending Budget in recent history. During the John Key - Bill English era we had new spending in each Budget of somewhere around a billion sometimes less and sometimes a little bit more. Grant Robertson allowed himself $6 billion the largest amount of new spending in a Budget ever and even that wasn't enough. He had to reach out for all the other cookie jars available to reach into the next Budget to get an extra few billion and into the old COVID fund to get a bit of extra money. He was reaching around and there's $9 billion of new spending in this Budget.So the obvious question people ask themselves is Well hang on a moment. Where's this all going to come from?" Inevitably if we keep on spending more and more and unfortunately not getting good results for it the inevitable consequence is that we're going to have to pay more tax down the line. This Government is sneaky when it comes to tax and that's why they love the inflationary environment which puts incomes up into higher tax brackets and increases the flow of income tax. And now we discover the day after the Budget that they're introducing a jobs tax—another new tax. They promised that they wouldn't bring in any new taxes but I suppose they'll say. "This isn't a tax; this is a levy." But for the New Zealanders who will have to pay it it doesn't matter whether it's a levy or a tax it's still money coming out of their pockets and into the Government's coffers. And so the proposal that is being considered for this jobs tax is 1.39 percent for each earner and for the employer. So if you're on the average wage 72000 bucks that's a thousand bucks a year. We've just heard with great fanfare that this Government is going to give everybody 350 bucks—well not everybody; everybody earning less than the average wage—for three months and then they're going to stop it; they're going to take it away. So they're giving on the one hand and on the other hand they're going to sneak another thousand bucks a year out of your pocket for the new jobs tax. What a sort of crooked arrangement that is and it's typical of this sneaky Government. They are addicted to spending. They can't stop spending. They always want to do more—no they don't want to do more; they want to announce more and they want to talk about more but they fail to deliver and New Zealanders are picking up the price. It is all making it more difficult for Kiwis who are struggling to get by and dealing with the cost of living crisis.When we look at this bill Mr Speaker—you might be interested in the details of this bill—this bill is a bill to prepare for another bill. I suppose that's how you would describe it. It's allowing the Accident Compensation Corporation to do some preparatory work for what's called the income insurance scheme that this Government is considering introducing. You can only conclude by the fact that they're introducing this bill that the Government is pretty keen to bring in this new jobs tax and that is to bring in income insurance for people who are made redundant and who are sick. Now of course New Zealanders are all aware that we already pay an enormous amount in tax for the benefit system that we enjoy in this country—it looks after people who are either sick or out of work and that's as it's been for a long time. This proposal is to add another layer on to that—income insurance—paid for by a levy. But the problem fundamentally with this is that this Government right throughout its history in the last five years has failed to recognise that if a Government adds to the cost structure of the economy and to the costs facing businesses it inevitably flows through to consumers—because you can't keep adding costs to businesses without there being a result. And we've seen that—Hon Members: Oh!Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and the Green Party groans I suppose—in the housing space. If you pile a lot of costs on to landlords surprise surprise they pass some of those costs on to the renters and rents go up and that makes it more difficult for New Zealanders to get ahead. That's why New Zealanders are struggling so much with high rental costs—it's partly because this Government keeps piling costs on that sector.When we look at the employment side we've got the fair pay agreements working their way through the House which will add rigidity to the public sector. We've had extra sick leave we've had higher minimum wages all these wonderful things—well the fair pay agreements are not wonderful in any way shape or form. They will add rigidity into our employment system at a time when we need to be flexible and agile in order to compete with the rest of the world. The Government wants to take us back to a clunky 1970s-style industrial relations framework. It's so bizarre that they would think that's a sensible idea. I don't know why but anyway they are.So that adds costs to the whole system—extra public holidays you name it; just throw it in. It's a Father Christmas approach to Government—if you want it you can have it. Higher minimum wages—that's fine but inevitably surprise surprise when you add to that cost structure that businesses face the consumers end up paying for it and that's one of the reasons for rising inflation. It's not the only reason but it's one of the reasons for the driving up of inflation. There's a jobs tax on top of all the other issues so employers will have to pay 1.4 percent in jobs tax. The employees will pay it as well. It all goes into a system which is estimated by the Treasury to cost $3.5 billion a year. Now I don't believe for one second that it will cost $3.5 billion a year if it is introduced. Some estimates already are suggesting $4.7 billion but it will only be the start. At the beginning of the discussion the Minister claimed incorrectly I think that Business New Zealand were all excited about this. They were quite enthusiastic early on. That enthusiasm has dimmed substantially I understand because what initially focused on a redundancy issue which was tied to the relaxation of other redundancy requirements so as to overall bring flexibility to the system has already expanded to sickness and other issues. And you can rest assured that once the system is set up it will balloon and balloon and balloon and the costs will grow and grow.The whole welfare system which we continue to pay for won't be reduced in any way shape or form with a whole new system developing on top and New Zealanders will end up suffering under the burden of it. So this bill is setting up an arrangement in order to set up a bill that we won't support either. It's an announcement about an announcement. It's a bad announcement about a bad announcement that's coming down the line. At the end of the day this is a backwards Budget. New Zealanders are going backwards and this is not going to help. All the talk about helping with the cost of living with a small payment to a small group for a short time will be more than wiped out by this extra jobs tax which is coming down the track."