Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Chair. There were a couple of comments made by the previous speakers that just cannot go unanswered so let me start. First of all Mr Bayly's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP): now this is about adjusting the tax rates. Now the cost of this is literally hundreds of millions of dollars. So let's theoretically assume that Mr Bayly's SOP was to go through. The question that I would ask the member is where would this money come from? So what would Mr Bayly do? Would he say OK what we're going to do is we're not going to invest in 1800 more police. We're going to leave the police static."? Or would he say "The $1.9 billion we're going to invest in mental health—no we're not going to invest in mental health."? Or would he perhaps say "Teachers—the teachers don't deserve the $1.5 billion tax cut. So we're not going to give them that."?So it's all very well saying we're going to give Mr Bayly and Mr McKelvie and myself and Mr Carter and everyone in this House a tax cut. But the question then has to be asked: if you're going to give money to those who don't necessarily need it—let's be honest—where are you going to get that money from? That side is always talking about fiscal prudence. That side has always talked about paying down Government debt and that is one of the good things about Mr Robertson's Budget. He kept that debt pay off projection exactly where it should be. The fiscal accountability rules; he stuck to them.But we have a choice as a Government. Mr Robertson had a choice as the Minister of Finance. He could give Kiwis tax cuts and let the social infrastructure erode even further or he could—and the Prime Minister—say "What we need to do is rebuild the foundations of our community of our society pay more teachers pay teachers more more nurses more police" and this is the decision that this Government has chosen. We would rather invest $1.9 billion in mental health and get that right than give Mr Bayly a tax cut. That is a choice we have made but I'm really interested to know what choice Mr Bayly would make in terms of where that money would come from.The other thing I would say is Mr McKelvie talked about the fact that we need more money in the pockets of the most disadvantaged in our community. Well Mr McKelvie the OECD came up with a report—it's called Taxing Wages 2019—and this report found that a family with one worker earning the average income with two children pays almost no net tax in New Zealand once transfers like Working for Families are included. It also showed that on the average tax rate a single worker without children earning average income is lower in New Zealand than all other OECD countries. So I suppose what I'm saying is we don't pay an onerous amount of tax here compared to all the other OECD countries. We don't have a payroll tax we don't have capital gains we don't have Medicare levies. In fact if a taxpayer really wants to know how much tax they are paying it is very easy to find out. IR's Business Transformation release number three—you go in there you type in your Inland Revenue number and any taxpayer can find out exactly how much tax they've paid.So it is incredibly transparent and in terms of how much money the Government is spending all you need to do Mr McKelvie—and I would recommend this; you would find it interesting—is grab a hold of Mr Robertson's Budget and take a look and see where the money is going. What you'll find: the money is going into mental health. The money is going to law and order. The money is going to education The money is going to sexual and family violence. The money is going into Oranga Tamariki. The money is going into Whānau Ora. We can tell you in black and white where this money's going. In fact in the last three weeks every coalition Government member has stood up and has enlightened the Opposition to exactly where the money is going and that is to building social infrastructure.So I am very interested in Mr Bayly's SOP because I just want to know where the money is coming from—where the money is coming from. I can enlighten the member that from all the polling—this is historical it's just within this country—if you ask the taxpayer "Do you want more money in your back pocket?" most of them will say "Yes". But then you tell them "But if that happens that means less police less doctors less nurses less social workers" and the vast majority say "No. I'd rather pay for social infrastructure." In fact—Hon Ruth Dyson: But it'd be "fewer police" wouldn't it.Hon STUART NASH: Well we want more police.Hon Ruth Dyson: Yeah but it would be "fewer police" rather than—Hon STUART NASH: It would be "fewer police" not "less police" you're dead right. Lucky Trevor's not here!Hon Ruth Dyson: That's right yeah. Under National it'd be fewer.Hon STUART NASH: Ha ha! So I remember a street corner meeting I had before the election and a gentleman came out and said "You know what? There's a tax cut but if we look around here and everyone in the suburb contributed that would mean one more nurse one more teacher and one more police officer for the suburb we live in and that is where I would rather my tax money was spent.""