Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): What an absolutely outrageous attempt to sum up what Labour has articulately put on this side of the House around its opposition to what the Government has simplistically put before New Zealanders today. Mr Bishop has done a complete disservice to New Zealanders by making the assumption that if given the opportunity to spend $1.9 billion—to spend $1.9 billion—they would prioritise having $10 a week over having decent healthcare over having decent infrastructure in their schools and over doing something about the 90000 young people who are not in work training or education. That is the trade-off that this Government has presented to the New Zealand public and Mr Bishop has done an absolute disservice to the people of New Zealand by assuming that that would be their priority. I can tell you Mr Bishop having done a number of public meetings around the country in the last few months that not once have I had a member of the public—and these have been members of this public interested in what political parties have to offer this election—raise a hand and ask: What are you going to do about the tax brackets in New Zealand?". I have not seen that on one occasion and why? Because they see the deficit in our social spending and our social infrastructure and that is what they are crying out for us to prioritise.But I want to break it down a little bit further because Grant Robertson also made another point. He has made it consistently as Labour's spokesperson on finance. It is about making sure we have an economy where we have shared prosperity. Chris Bishop stood up and tried to claim that this change in tax brackets would make a difference in sharing prosperity for those on the lowest incomes. The problem of course as he well knows is any time you adjust tax brackets yes you may dish out a small amount to those on the lowest incomes but you will always disproportionately benefit those on higher incomes. That is the clumsiness of rearranging the deck chairs around tax brackets which is why Working for Families was introduced by Labour as a way to make sure that we targeted those who needed it most.Those who needed it most often were those who had kids who were on low and middle incomes and who had maybe one or two or even three children. They were often living in expensive parts of the country and struggling to get by. We created a package where we were able to nuance all of those elements and truly target—truly target—those who needed it most. That was a tool available to this Government and it acknowledged that that was available but instead of putting a larger proportion of its Budget into those families it spent $1.9 billion on inefficient piecemeal tax cuts that will deliver 10 bucks a week to those on the $20000 mark and 20 bucks to those on more than $50000. Then it spent $373 million on Working for Families. That is a totally disproportionate approach to genuinely helping families in their need as members crow about on the other side of the House—a totally disproportionate approach.For absolute clarity we support the simplification of Working for Families and the vague attempt made in this bill to deliver more to those families although I will get into more detail about the fact that the Government is giving with one hand and taking with the other. But if this bill was a bill that was simply about those simplification measures—and just to be really clear what they are the Government has proposed increasing the rate for children under the age of 16 to the same rate that is delivered for children between 16 and 18 for the first child. It has also suggested changing the rate for subsequent children. By and large that would deliver a positive outcome and we think that that was a good suggestion from the Government. If that were the only thing that it was putting before us in this tax package we would be able to support it and to prove that Mr Bishop I have an amendment in my name that is solely about those tax changes which we will be voting in favour of because that is the part of the bill that genuinely delivers to low and middle income New Zealanders.However demonstrating the fact that it is incapable of doing anything to Working for Families without then winding down the screws on other families on those families who are still doing it tough the Government has shifted the threshold for abatement and increased the abatement rate. So now Working for Families will start abating at $35000. To be really clear that means that a family that is on the median income in New Zealand with one child will be worse off—worse off—under this package from this Government and by quite some sum. That is because of those continuing abatement rate changes and thresholds. This is not the first time the Government has proposed changes like that. It has done it consistently since Labour left office. In fact substantive changes came in in 2011 that almost amounted to roughly $500 million removed from Working for Families. Just to be clear the Government took out almost $500 million in 2011. It is now putting back in $373 million. So let us keep its generosity in perspective if we can. So—the Government took that out. If it was actually to maintain taking into account inflation the level that Working for Families was at in 2010 this would have to be a $700 million package just for Working for Families—just to stand still with those 2010 levels.So let us keep this in perspective. This has always been a Government when it comes to Working for Families that has given with one hand what it has taken with another. But I do want to reiterate that it has fundamentally changed its approach to Working for Families. It has continued to squeeze out families who previously would have been eligible under Labour. Labour used Working for Families to reach middle and low income families—middle and low income families. This Government has changed that approach. It has fundamentally changed that approach in the way that it has worked with Working for Families.I want to highlight something though that may not have been picked up as yet. Everyone in this House will know that Labour has long battled to try to get this Government to commit in the long term to reducing inequality and poverty statistics. We have long pushed for that to happen. The Government has continued to refuse to acknowledge the need for any kind of targets or even a measure for poverty at all—continued to refuse to do that—despite the Children's Commissioner continuing to produce a child poverty monitor. The reason this is relevant is that two of the measures that we have always pushed the Government to adopt have been based on the median income levels. We wanted the Government to acknowledge that the 295000 children in poverty are based on a measure of the number of families on 60 percent of the median income or less and actually those living in the harshest poverty are those considered to be living on 50 percent of the median income or less.In Fact Sheet 1 the Government finally makes reference to the number of children and families receiving less than half of the median income. It has chosen the harshest measure to be fair the one that it is easiest to move families in and around poverty out of because it is such a harsh measure but it has finally—finally—referenced one of the poverty measures we have consistently asked the Government to acknowledge.Chris Bishop: We reference them all the time.JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Bishop I ask you to reflect on the Hansard and on the number of occasions we have asked the Minister to adopt that as one of the measures and they have continually refused. My request here is a generous one Mr Bishop. My request here is that if you are willing to reference it in a Budget document just be consistent—adopt these measures properly. Hold yourself to account consistently. Had this been a full Government measure that it included in the Public Finance Act as Labour has said we would do perhaps we would have seen a different Budget. One final thought: Labour because we are willing to hold ourselves to those measures and targets—we know what it takes to lift families out of poverty.We know that parents and families are in the harshest poverty while their children are aged 0 to 3. We know that that is also when it is fundamental for a child to be well supported. That is why Labour proposed Best Start. It still remains we think one of the best most targeted efficient mechanisms to support families with young children in need. It is $60 a week because that is what it takes to move families out of poverty. A block of cheese does not. That is why this is a failure—$1.9 billion spread over a group. That will just make so little difference when we needed so much more."