English BillRt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): As the Government implements in this package two-thirds of what was announced in Budget 2017—I didn't hear then the warm aspirational rhetoric about the increases for instance in the housing assistance that was announced in Budget 2017 under the National Government. It's directly replicated in this package but now it's a revolutionary move to show a kinder gentler New Zealand! Just a few months ago it was—Hon Steven Joyce: The end of the world!Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The end of the world! No it was niggardly unkind uncaring fiscally too tight. But now: transform". So the transformation that we're talking about today is not so much the transformation for the families who will receive the dividends of a strong economy and good Government books; it's simply that the Labour Party now has the chequebook. So that's the difference that Grant Robertson was showing which he was talking about today.Let's see—well the Minister did a great job of looking like the cat's got his cream. But what he has no understanding about is where the cream comes from. That became clear today in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update which showed that this Government is inheriting the strongest economy of any incoming Government with stronger Government books than any incoming Government. And the test is not: did they do something with that? The test is: did they do what could have been done? Have they done a really good job of it or as we see here an intellectually muddled job—and I'll go through that.Here are the components of the Family Incomes Package from 2017. It had three components. A big increase in housing assistance—and I'm pleased the Government's kept that because the families with the lowest incomes and the highest housing costs are those most under pressure. Some families in high rental areas like west Auckland will benefit by well over $100 a week from that. That is one of the single biggest impacts on lifting those families above the poverty line of 50 percent of the median household income. Then there are the child payments under Working for Families. They're targeted. The Government's increased those by a bit more than was announced in Budget 2017—just a little bit more. They've changed the abatement threshold. That does mean that more higher-income families get it—not more lower-income families but more higher-income families. So that's the Working for Families part—that's targeted and they've kept that.Then of course they've abolished the changes in tax thresholds. So someone on the average wage we heard from the Deputy Prime Minister today is greedy. They greedily thought that with Government surpluses—$20 a week or $1000 a year is far too much for their share of all the hard work over the last 10 years! This is where the Labour Party message is grinding with New Zealanders. They're acting as if they've discovered some new country. Well maybe they have but everyone else over the last 10 years has worked hard. We've all been careful with the Government finances. Businesses and households have reorganised themselves. The people in Christchurch found their way through an earthquake. And now is the opportunity where the whole country could benefit from that. But instead what's actually happened is a very simple thing: the Government has cancelled the tax reductions for New Zealanders across the board and that money has gone on the tertiary package. That's what's happened.We saw the Deputy Prime Minister struggling today to explain why they are against universalism when everyone gets $1000 a year but they are for it when you give it to every student regardless of their income. As I asked the Prime Minister the other day why is it so much fairer if they're against MPs benefiting by $1000 a year but they then give our children $12000 a year? Because that's what happens. Well I know about that because I've got some. I can tell you that's the irony of this: my household is miles better off—miles better off under this intellectually incoherent stupid policy. My household is I think something like $10000 a year better off. What sense does that make? None. Because I appreciate the people—well I feel guilty about it because I know who's worked for it. I know who has given up: people on the average wage who voted for that Minister are giving up $1000—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask Andrew Little to settle down but I'm especially going to ask Brett Hudson to stop making those gestures. Thank you.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just to summarise in more normal tones my household's miles better off because the Government has taken away $1000 a year from average wage earners and handed that to those people who are getting a free tertiary education for one year. That's actually technically regressive because almost all of them tend to come from higher-income families than those on the average wage who are paying the bill.That just brings me to the issue of child poverty. You see the finance Minister is acting like the cat who's got his cream but he's getting one saucer of it. You see this is one shot one plug of cream that he gets to lick his lips on because all the money is gone for the next five years. And here's the difference: if they'd stuck with the law as it stands and the fiscal management that was in place then within two years we could have had another round of tax reductions and child poverty reductions. So it's good that under this—well you know when it was 50000 they took no notice and said it was terrible and said New Zealand was an unkind country but now today as they implement this it's 70000 and suddenly it's a revolution—we're in a completely different world.Well it's good that there are 70000 kids coming out of poverty but of course what they're missing there is the other half of the equation. The households where there's long-term benefit dependency where there's family violence where there's serial criminal offending and where there's gambling problems—what do you think is going to happen to the extra money if you do nothing to support those families? The other half of the equation was always the social investment approach and that is to recognise that not only is it about low incomes; it's also about social dysfunction. If you don't deal with the social dysfunction honestly and in the gritty and long-term way that's required then increases in incomes will certainly have some benefits but will not deal with persistent deprivation.Those members know that that is true. But here's where the Minister of Finance has slipped one past them: there's no money to do it now. Social investment is exactly about investment. It is expensive. It costs money to deal with highly complex families but there's no money left to do it because it's gone to the people who don't need it—that is the first-year students at university and polytech. So the Government has not put—it has not put—our most disadvantaged households at the core of its strategy and that is the incoherence of this package. It's an odd mix of copying the last Government's policy and adding some untargeted misfired universal cash going to households who don't need it. And the long-term issues remain untouched and there's no threat that that Government will get near them. They've got no money and no will to do it."