Smith Lockwood: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Smith Lockwood: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3707] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The Hon Annette King has just provided a very interesting contrast to a previous speaker. She actually talked about the Labour Government’s programme as it looks ahead. I do not agree with everything she said but at least I have to give her some credit for talking about what her Government plans to do. In contrast there was the Hon Trevor Mallard the pretender to the role of Minister of Finance. I ask members to compare those two front-bench Ministers. Trevor Mallard just made up anything when he spoke to this House half an hour ago. I came into this Parliament in 1984 the same year as Trevor Mallard. He was just a bully-boy back then—a gutter fighter—and he has not improved. If he thinks he will take over the role of Minister of Finance for this Labour Government God help this Labour Government! 
Mind you I gather his competition is Phil Goff. I followed Phil Goff as Minister of Education in 1990. The very first appointment the Ministry of Education asked me to have as Minister was with John Gill the financial controller. He contacted my office and said to my senior private secretary that he had to see me urgently. He came into my office and said: “Minister there are some things you must know.” He laid out in front of me—as the new Minister—the illegal spending that had been ordered by Phil Goff the previous Minister of Education leading up to the 1990 election. Phil Goff had spent money not appropriated by Parliament to try to buy votes for Labour which knew that it was on the skids and on the way out. 
That is the integrity of Phil Goff when it comes to financial matters. Phil Goff was illegally spending taxpayers’ money—hundreds of millions—to try to buy votes for Labour on its way out. I have never forgotten that because—as the new Minister—I had to pass legislation through Parliament to make Phil Goff’s dishonest spending legal. And Phil Goff wants a claim to the role of Minister of Finance! Mind you the guy they seek to replace Michael Cullen was Associate Minister of Finance at the time and he brought into Parliament one of the most deceitful Budgets and one of the most dishonest Budgets seen here in the last 20 years. Michael Cullen as Associate Minister of Finance brought into Parliament the 1990 Budget. It claimed a $79 million surplus— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: That’s right! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Pete Hodgson says that is right. It was—after the books were fiddled—because the revenue included the proceeds from the sale of forestry assets that should never have been included. That was blatantly dishonest. And what is more shortly after that when the books were opened after the election that $79 million surplus proved to be a multibillion-dollar deficit. Those members were all implicated. Trevor Mallard was here Michael Cullen was partly responsible for it and Phil Goff contributed to that huge deficit blowout because he spent hundreds of millions of dollars—that had never been authorised by Parliament—to buy votes. I will never forget that because I was the Minister who had to pass the legislation to make that dishonest spending legal. 
I will talk now about this latest Budget and the supplementary estimates we are meant to debate today. This Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill provides an extra $14.697 million to Vote Revenue for departmental output expense “information services”. That extra $14.697 million is to enable this Government to promote its Working for Families and interest-free student loan policies. This is $15 million extra on top of the $116 million that the Inland Revenue Department already has for information services to put spin on its Working for Families package. 
I am not surprised the Government has to do this because this Labour Government—with Michael Cullen Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard—claims that someone on an income of $60000 should be on the top tax rate of 39c in the dollar. They consider that people with an income of $60000 are so wealthy they should pay the top tax rate. I am not surprised they have to spend $15 million on promoting Working for Families because under this scheme a person earning $60000 and on the top tax rate who has one dependent child gets a benefit. From 1 April next year a person who is earning enough to be on the top tax rate and has one dependent child can put out his or her hand out and get a benefit and become a beneficiary under this Labour Government. What an outrage and what a shocking policy this is that people are taxed at the top tax rate and then the Government has to spend another $15 million explaining to these people that they can also get welfare. 
Working for Families needs a lot of explaining. People earning $47000 with 3 dependent children will have $10500 PAYE deducted by their employers for the year. But under Working for Families people can go cap in hand to the Government to get welfare and get every single cent of it back. People on $47000—which is above the average full-time ordinary wage in this country—and with three dependent children pay $10500 in tax and get $10500 of welfare. That is a dumb absurd policy because it costs taxpayers more to channel the money through the bureaucracy to pay it all back. 
Would it not make a bit of sense to actually cut the tax that people are paying in the first place? Instead of taxing people $10500 and asking them to come cap in hand to get it all back—and on $47000 they get every single cent of it back—I would have thought it would be better policy to tax them a bit less. It is no wonder this Government has to spend $15 million to explain this package because how will it explain it to poorer families? 
There are families trying to get off the domestic purposes benefit or the unemployment benefit who have three children and are earning at the moment $10000 of extra income. If they earn an extra $15000 a year this will take them up to $25000 of extra earned income. For poorer people at $15 an hour that is an extra 20 hours work a week; at $12 an hour for some of our lower-paid people that is an extra 25 hours’ work a week; they earn $15000 extra income in the year. Do members know how much of that the Government takes off them? Under Working for Families this wonderful wonderful package that it is spending $15 million explaining the Government will take $13306 of that $15000 from that poor family. The Government will take 89 percent of every extra dollar earned by that poor family as it earns between $10000 and $25000 of extra income to try to get off the benefit. This Labour Government which says that it cares about poor families will take 89 percent off every one of those extra dollars earned and will leave with that family $1.30 per hour for that extra work. Minimum wages—where the hell is the minimum wage when the Government takes so much tax off that extra money earned that the family is left with $1.30 an hour for every one of those extra hours worked? That family works an extra 25 hours a week and it is left with $1.30 an hour. It is little wonder New Zealanders are sick of this Government and sick of its taxation policies.