Sepuloni CarmelCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to start by touching on Mr Stuart Smith's comments about wanting to speak to someone who knows how to run the economy. He is talking to a party on this side of the House which when last in Government ran nine surpluses and his Government—let us remember—ran one. Actually my colleague Ruth Dyson sent a letter out to her constituents and used a line that I think is really true and we should use more often. That line is: A real surplus comes once the Government has met its obligations to its citizens not by delayed expenditure and clever accounting." That is the only way that they reached one surplus over 9 years. So if Mr Stuart Smith wants to talk to people who know about the economy then he should probably have more conversations with people on this side of the House because he is wasting his time—he is absolutely wasting his time—on that side of the House.We have all been out and about—6 weeks now out from an election—I am sure at many meet-the-candidates meetings many political panel discussions and debates. The one thing that I stand up and say proudly at every single one of those debates is that Labour will not apologise for not supporting the National Government's tax cuts—and every time I say that I get a round of applause from the room. The reason I get a round of applause from the room is because New Zealanders know that that Government has underspent and under-invested in the things that matter to New Zealanders: a lack of funding for health a lack of funding for education and a massive lack of funding and investment in housing. So New Zealanders do not want to see $400 million - plus of tax cuts go into the pockets of the top 10 percent of income earners in this country. They see it as irresponsible and it is going to be one of the worst memories that members of this Government have of one of their last actions because they thought that they could buy the votes of New Zealanders but it is not going to work and we are getting that sense out there. New Zealanders are telling us that it will not work. Let us reflect on National's tax package in Budget 2017. Bill English's tax change is so the wealthiest get $35 extra a week and the lowest paid get $5.13 a week.Hon Ruth Dyson: How can that be fair?CARMEL SEPULONI: How can that be my colleague Ruth Dyson says. How can we in this House need an additional $35 a week particularly when we know that we have got over 41000 New Zealanders who are homeless now particularly when we see that actually we have got the worst level of homelessness in the whole OECD. Yet they think that the politicians in this House deserve an extra $35 per week. It does not sound very fair to me. Someone on the average wage will get just $11 a week. That makes me think back to 2008 when we were getting criticised on this side of the House—for what? What were they comparing our tax cuts with? A block of cheese I think it was. Well with $11 you will be lucky if that gets you a block of cheese now. So are members on that side of the House now thinking that a block of cheese is enough? Because that is what they are giving the person every week who is on an average wage with their tax cuts; $35 to themselves but $11 to the person on the average wage.Their changes however will also take money away from people as well. For example a full-time single cleaner on the minimum wage gets an extra $11 in tax cuts but loses $10 from the removal of the independent earner tax credit so they will end up with $1 which is where "One dollar bill" came from people.There are changes to Working for Families some of which we support. There are changes that that side of the House has made with regard to the accommodation supplement which we reluctantly had to support—reluctantly because we do know that that money goes directly to the landlords of the people who are receiving it so it does not actually benefit them in any way. I will give a couple of examples from my own electorate where it was very clear that that is the case. So at a caravan park in west Auckland—it has been covered in the media quite a bit over the years—the landlord is very aware of what his tenants are entitled to so he charges to the hilt so that they get the maximum entitlements and he is the one who benefits off it. So that landlord of that caravan park will be going: "Thank you National Government. You've just enabled me to put my rents up a little more to these vulnerable people living in the caravan park so that I can maximise their accommodation supplement and pocket all the money myself."It is not just caravan parks though that I have seen it with; I have seen it with boarding houses. So if it is caravan parks and boarding house landlords who are doing it what makes them on that side of that the House think that there are not private landlords who know how the system works and know how to maximise the entitlements of the vulnerable people who are living in their houses so that they benefit from it because unfortunately that is the case.We have talked in this House—over and over again and we sound like a stuck record but all of New Zealand knows that this is true—that we are going through a housing crisis. It is embarrassing—embarrassing—about the fact that after 9 years in Government all of the Government members are trained to deny that that is the case. You know years ago we had climate change deniers; now we have got housing crisis deniers on that side of the House. Hon Ruth Dyson: We've got some climate change deniers still too.CARMEL SEPULONI: Well yes that is the case. There are still some climate change deniers. But by denying that we have a housing crisis what they are doing is they are unable to actually address it appropriately or adequately because they will not accept the extent of the problem that we are facing. I have seen it in my electorate with a tetraplegic woman who ends up living in a modified van after being told by Work and Income and Housing New Zealand to go and stay in a boarding house. So she ends up living in a modified van with her partner and her 4-year-old daughter and the only time the system springs into action is when an Opposition MP brings it to the attention of the media. I have seen it in my electorate when I found a family—parents and two children—living under a tarpaulin a makeshift tent at the back of a house in Henderson and the only time the Government department springs into action is when an Opposition MP brings it to the attention of the media. Yet you know—and I will say this—we have one of the Ministers saying that Labour MPs or Opposition MPs are using our constituents for fodder with the media. Well actually the only way we get attention half the time is if we get public attention around the case. That is the only time the Government responds.But it is disappointing because as an Opposition MP after 9 years even though I had 3 years out with my short sabbatical there I have come to learn that the only thing you can do in Opposition really or one of the few things you can do is achieve success on a case by case basis but you cannot create the over—what is the word?Hon Ruth Dyson: Arching.CARMEL SEPULONI: "Overarching"—that is the word Ruth. You cannot create the overarching change that you want to change the system and to make it better off for a lot more New Zealanders. You are just dealing with it on a case by case basis.So their management of our economy their management of taxpayers' dollars has been irresponsible over the last 9 years. Their priorities are in the wrong place. You need only to go out into the public and people accept the fact that housing has been under-invested in; health has been under-invested in particularly mental health; education has been under-invested in; and actually New Zealanders have had enough. They want to know that when they need to access their public services they are there for them and they support them and their families adequately. But that has not been the case under that Government; in fact things have continued to get worse and I think on 23 September people will make their voices known in terms of how well they think that Government has looked after them and their families. I think that that side of the House is in for some disappointment."