Joyce StevenHon STEVEN JOYCE (National): It's transformative all right. It's transformative in that it makes 1.2 million New Zealanders worse off. That's the only thing that's transformative about this bill. This bill is all about Grant Robertson being the Grant that stole Christmas". He tries to rock in and say that he's gifting things to people but actually here we are frozen 11 days out from Christmas—10 days out for everybody else—and 1.2 million New Zealanders know that it's the "Grant that stole Christmas".And you'd think that Grant Robertson could at least say to New Zealanders who are losing their $1060—he could at least acknowledge that that's what's going on. Instead he stands there like King Canute pretending that that's not what's happening. He stands there and says "Oh it didn't happen it's not in my talking points." Well it happened all right and he is removing it and he needs to own up to that. Perhaps then people would respect him because then he could say "Well actually I know you were going to get this money but I've decided to give it to the university students; I've decided to give it to people on high incomes via a baby bonus; I've decided to do a winter energy payment because I can't bring myself to lift tax thresholds and provide money for superannuitants." But he didn't say that; all he did was try to pretend that it hadn't happened—that it hadn't been put into law.There are some good things about this package. The good things are those that were put in place by the previous Government: the accommodation supplement changes and the Working for Families changes. The bulk of what this Government achieves in lifting people out of poverty and children out of poverty is achieved through the changes that were announced in Budget 2017—which are left in place.Then we've had the rather moving feast of how many other people how many other children would be lifted out of poverty. We were told yesterday it was 39000 more; then we were told that's not till 2021; then we were told it's 21000 next year not 39000—21000 next year—and then in the regulatory impact statement it says 12000. Now apparently according to Mr Robertson we got the wrong copy. He's now been out and strong armed the officials—strong armed the officials—to make it a bigger number because his number was bigger and that is in spite of the fact that that was signed out by the IRD Treasury and Ministry of Social Development and undoubtedly it was inspected by his office. It was wrong apparently. It was wrong and actually they were all wrong; he's right the 12000 figure is wrong! Well it's not wrong—it's what is in the disclosure statement in the regulatory impact statement of this bill. I'll tell you what this side of the House thinks that his numbers are very squidgy indeed.So what we haven't had in this 14-hour debate is any explanation why 1.2 million New Zealanders should miss out on the benefits of their hard work over the last nine years from 1 April next year—why people on the average wage should have to pay $1060 more in income tax from 1 April than was scheduled for them and is now the case when this bill passes into law. We've had no explanation why the first thing a Government that says it wants to lift wages does is to reduce what workers get from their wages. There's been no explanation for that and the Andrew Little that used to be proudly standing up for the workers of New Zealand is quiet or angry depending on his perspective when that happens.It is ridiculous that we should be having more than half of full-time wage-workers on 30c in the dollar marginal tax rates. We need to change that and Parliament will have to change that and it's a regressive step to cancel those changes which is what the Government has done.And then there's the baby bonus. Weirdly tax cuts are bad because they're universal and everybody gets them but it's right to give $3120 for wealthy people when they have a child—a baby child. And then you've got this big problem with this baby bonus which are these very high effective marginal tax rates. Again in the regulatory impact statement—and for all I know that's wrong as well because after all Grant gets to edit it once it's been tabled in the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Grant Robertson gets to edit it once it's been tabled in the House—thank you very much Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Someone's listening.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That's good. And good news for you Mr Speaker: quite a few more than just you—my mum and dad as well. The $3120 abatement rate—Treasury has warned of effective marginal tax rates of over 100 percent because of the spaghetti of entitlements that this Government is making worse rather than better.Now we offered them the idea: why don't you include this in Working for Families? It would have been straightforward easy—we even offered them a one- or two-page Supplementary Order Paper that would have done it for them and they turned us down because it wasn't their idea. We know how much this lot doesn't like it when it's not their idea.Then we have the winter energy payment—that is truly an embarrassing piece of legislative fluff to quote my good friend from Northland. It is an embarrassing piece of legislative fluff. It's a Winter Energy Payment that is neither for winter nor for energy: you don't have to use it for your power bill and it doesn't come to you in winter. It's a hastily designed piece of fluff to cover for the drop in superannuation from when the tax threshold changes were cancelled. It is pointless bureaucracy. It also short-changes superannuitants as Nick Smith pointed out. This next year superannuitants will get only $466 instead of the $680 they would have got under the previous Government. It's not indexed so actually the real value of it declines every year.And then there's the silly last-minute thing about the fact that you have to stay in New Zealand or you can go on holiday but then you have to get reported by the Customs Service if you go overseas so you get your money cancelled and a big hand comes out of the ATM and grabs your money back—that's what they're offering. It's weird. Again we offered them a solution. We said "Don't do all this rubbish. You've got yourself stuck in a hole. Why don't you actually turn around and just do a one-off increase for superannuation?" It would have been a much simpler approach but no—again too proud. They have to persist with the charade of a poorly designed programme.This is the problem: we have a very proud 36.9 percent party that's come into Government and is now executing a programme that was not supported by anything like the majority of New Zealanders in terms of this package. It wasn't campaigned on by New Zealand First or the Greens—in fact they voted for the previous Government's package. That's what they did and here we are—we have all these Ministers lining up members lining up and saying "This is supported by the majority of New Zealanders." Well I'll tell you what: it isn't. It is clearly not supported by the majority of New Zealanders; it is supported by only 36.9 percent if that of New Zealanders. It was so messy many of them would not have been able to even make head or tail of it. It is messy poorly designed confused rushed and that's the quality of this new Government's lawmaking. In the last 14 hours we've been able to show what a shonky piece of legislation it is.The interesting final point is that this was their one shot. If you look at the fiscal programme that they've laid out it is so tight that they will never get another shot to do this. They already have 28 specific fiscal risks—29 if you count Grant—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Robertson—28 specific fiscal risks that they have. There is no way that they're going to do another package. Mr SPEAKER: Two strikes.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This was their one shot—this was their one shot and now they have blown it. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I'm trying to tidy up the quality of debate in the rules here and Kris Faafoi is not helping.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you Mr Speaker. This was their one shot and they've got it wrong. What they'll be forever known as is the party that delivered us all the "Grant who Stole Christmas" for 1.2 million New Zealanders and took $1060 away from average-wage workers. That's what's happened in this House tonight."