Turei Metiria: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turei Metiria: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11139. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This part of the bill deals with the tax cuts that will significantly benefit the rich and leave the poorest of our most vulnerable families and particularly their children with the least. It is considered by this Government to be fair that the children of the wealthiest families get more than the children of the most vulnerable and poor. National calls that progress and it calls that fair; the Greens call it a national disgrace. There are alternatives of course. These tax cuts do not have to be so utterly regressive that our poorest children will suffer the most; they could be progressive tax cuts. I would like to outline a proposal that the Green Party presented on Monday in our Mind the Gap package which is a set of solutions designed precisely to deal with the rising gap between rich and poor in terms of inequality and income disparity which is one of the most significant social and economic problems in this country—and a growing problem in this country. 
One of our proposals is that there should be a tax-free band of $10000 whereby all people who earn income including beneficiaries would not pay tax on the first $10000 of their income. That is a truly fair and truly progressive personal tax cut option. It is a choice that John Key could have made which would make a significant difference to the children of the poorest families. We know that the children of the poorest families in New Zealand go without. It is not because their parents do not care; it is because there simply is not enough money. Children go without shoes raincoats breakfast lunch school trips and after-school programmes. Those children go without their basic rights to good health and a good education. Some members on the National side of the Chamber who believe in the deserving poor charity model might suggest that those people go to budgeting services. In fact that is what Paula Bennett suggests as part of her reforms in social welfare. But there is no budgeting advice in the world that can make up the difference if there is simply not enough money to care for the needs of those children. The children who are in the worst poverty require more support. 
The choice which John Key could have made but did not make of providing a tax-free band of $10000 would provide—we estimate without Government resources—something like $15 or $17 a week in the back pockets of every earner. That means that every person would receive the same amount which is fair in the context of a progressive tax. But because $15 or $17 is proportionately much more significant for those on $10000 a year as opposed to those on $150000 a year it is a fairer tax cut for the country for earners and for the children who are the most disadvantaged. This measure I say again was a choice that this Government could have made. It is a cheaper tax cut option than National’s package. It does not cost $4.5 billion; it costs around $3 billion. Any kind of tax cut that is imposed will cost the country money. There will always be a question of whom we choose to benefit the most from any tax cut. The Green Party would choose families who are on the lowest incomes. The Green Party would choose children who are living in the worst poverty. We would choose them to benefit the most from a personal tax cut. But this Government did not do that. This Government chose instead to benefit the most wealthy some of our highest-income earners by thousands of dollars a week while those on the lowest incomes are arguably much worst off than they were previously. 
At a best estimate someone who earns $10000 a year might get 85c a week. That is a very best generous estimate. But why should the families who are on the very lowest incomes and the children who suffer from the worst possible poverty in this country be the ones who pay? Why should they be the ones who subsidise the wealthy? Why should they be the ones who enable the most wealthy New Zealanders to get thousands of dollars a week in their back pocket when they got nothing? There is no justification for that. John Key’s Government is increasing inequality in this country. 
Carol Beaumont 
: That’s right. Continuing to increase it. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: John Key’s Government is continuing to increase inequality widening the gap between the rich and the poor. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Deliberately. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: He is sucking the resources—deliberately I agree—out of our families away from our children. The children who go to school without shoes and raincoats and proper food are the children who are paying for John Key’s tax cuts.