Ardern Jacinda; Tisch LindsayClauses 1 and 2JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is my real pleasure to stand and give an address on the title and commencement date for this bill. I think we have argued fairly consistently despite the title of the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill that actually if you take some elements of this bill and analyse them independently it is very very clear that there are winners and losers as a consequence of the amendments that the Government has tried to make today. It is very clear that those on the minimum wage who do not have dependants lose out from this package. Look perhaps the emphasis on families is something that the Government has been very deliberate about and I will come to whether all families are covered by this package but it is very clear that there is a group of New Zealanders who are increasingly left out by this Government. It is those who are on low wages who do not have dependants—that will often mean that they are young people in minimum wage jobs—who will really be struggling and will continue to struggle after this legislation passes. In fact I can see over here that a dollar sits—Grant Robertson: Oh there it is. We were looking for that.JACINDA ARDERN: Ha ha! We have been looking for that. A dollar is sitting by Andrew Little's chair and that is because yesterday he placed emphasis on the fact that someone who is in a minimum wage job—as Grant Robertson has pointed out perhaps the cleaner in his office—who is earning a small wage will lose the independent earner tax credit that exists currently because of these changes and the small $11 increase they receive will therefore diminish down to just $1. So this package very clearly is not about those income earners in New Zealand. Those are the people who lose out.Equally though I would not want there to be an assessment because this bill is called the Family Incomes Package" bill that all families end up winning out of this bill. In fact I would suggest that a more accurate name for the title of the bill would have been the "Taxation (Budget Measures: Some Families' Incomes Package) Bill" because those families who have one child and who earn even less than the median income—from memory from about the $45000 mark you end up being worse off as a consequence of this package. In fact the Government is determined that abatement should kick in at $35000. Families living on $35000 with kids do not feel wealthy in New Zealand and yet that is the message that this bill sends. Clearly it is the "Some Family Incomes Package"; it is the "Less-than-median-income Incomes Package"—wordy I know but more accurate—"for Families".I think probably also it would be fair to acknowledge in this bill—the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith got caught out when trying to rebut Grant Robertson because of course he was trying to argue who was better off overall whereas it is very very clear that you do have to take into account the context and the vibe of the thing to really assess who is going to be better off.Kris Faafoi: Context and the vibe.JACINDA ARDERN: Ha ha! The context and the vibe—because actually taken as individual entities in this bill there are distinct losers and distinct winners. It has simply been our argument that we could have done better if we really wanted to target that support.I would argue that the bill should also in the title capture the trade-offs that are made in the way the Government has pitched its spending. We have reiterated this many times: $1.9 billion of spending does come at a cost elsewhere. It seems timely to me that I just had someone from my electorate contact me today to say that they had just sat through a day of workshops on fundraising for their local school—a day of workshops on fundraising to provide basic needs for their local school. That individual in question might get 20 bucks out of this Budget but you can bet your bottom dollar that that 20 bucks will go into the next school fair or go to the next gala day or go to the next set of raffles in order to support schools whose operational funding has been frozen for too long. This bill should be titled the "Budget Trade-offs Bill" the "Pay with One Hand Receive with the Other Bill" because disproportionately we have affected those who do not need it and we are taking from those who do.On the title and commencement—oh but wait there is more Grant Robertson—if the Government really meant it it would bring it in earlier. It would bring it in earlier. New Zealanders will be waiting until well after an election cycle in which case Labour will be in office and we need not worry. So all will be well—that will be a Government that will spend wisely.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call—Grant Robertson: What's-his-name.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): James—James Shaw."