Tremain Chris: General Debate 
Tremain Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2299] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 There is an old mantra in this country—in this fine New Zealand of ours—in our communities and in our families and it goes something like this: when times get tough one pulls in one’s belt spends less works harder and looks for greater efficiencies. Times are tough in this country. The rate of growth has almost halved in the past year with pain now spreading from the export sector into the domestic markets. 
I will talk about the export sector for a minute. We have all known what the situation has been like in the horticultural sector and the fishing and forestry industries for the last 6 months to a couple of years. Now we are seeing farming being brought into that situation. We have seen dairying suppressed for 2005 and 2006 and the outlook for 2006-07 is bad as well. Sheep prices are down 25 percent. We will no longer be able to rely on those high commodity prices that this Government has depended on for the last 3 to 6 years. Tourism is also feeling the pinch. The number of visitors in the 3 months to January was down 1.4 percent on last year. Tourism is an industry that should be growing year on year. 
We now have solid data showing that the domestic market has slowed down considerably. Growth in retail revenues has stopped. The housing market has slowed if not stopped altogether. What is more overall economic growth has flattened out to nothing. 
Hon Member 
: It is negative. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is negative. In the last quarter ended 31 December we saw growth drop below the line into negative growth territory. So what are we doing? Are we spending less under that old mantra? No. Are we looking for greater efficiencies? No. Are we encouraging people to work harder? No. So what is this Government doing? It is undertaking a huge spend-up. It is spending millions more. It is increasing the inefficiencies with tax churned through the system. It is creating a disincentive to work rather than an incentive and it is doing that via a welfare package called Working for Families. As John Key said before it should be called “Welfare for Families”. That is what the Government is introducing. Let us not make any mistakes about that—it is simply welfare for families. Middle-class families complete with their iPods and their cellphones are now able to claim their entitlement. 
New Zealand was the first country in the world to introduce the welfare State which was a noble goal. The intention was to help those who cannot help themselves but now there are families earning over $100000 who are eligible for a State handout. From 1 April 348000 families—in effect three-quarters of all our families—will become beneficiaries. This is despite a  
Herald- 
DigiPoll stating that 60 percent of our nation do not want it. They would prefer a change to their tax situation—that is they want their taxes to go down. Bizarrely people who are deemed rich—those in the 39 percent tax category earning above $60000—at the same time are deemed poor enough to require a family assistance benefit. It is crazy. 
At a time when we should be pulling our belts in when other countries are trying to get people off the welfare system what are we doing? We are bringing 348000 people on to it. Nothing is for free. Families have to pay taxes for all those benefits. Much of the money is just being recycled straight back to the people who are paying for it in the first place. Let me make it clear: it is not the Government’s money; it is taxpayers’ money. I hear time and time again that people should feel honoured to be getting it back but it is their money in the first place. 
The Inland Revenue Department now has 470000 staff with an annual expense of $475 million. It is a tax army—an army of Inland Revenue Department merchants tax accountants and tax lawyers. It is now four times larger than our own land army would members believe. On top of that we have a TV advertising campaign to encourage those people earning over $100000 to get in there cap in hand and pick up their benefit. It is costing $21 million to do that. Would it not be easier to collect less tax and leave more in people’s pockets?