Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Speaker. If I may I'd like to take a moment just to reflect on the politics of this bill. Currently the income tax bracket changes require a law change and the member who submitted this bill knows this and is trying to make it look like we would be voting against tax cuts which is not so. So it's a very clever move by the former Leader of the Opposition. I note that it is supported by the current leader of the opposition the previous speaker David Seymour who is not supporting it beyond the first reading because obviously he needs to distinguish himself now as preferred Prime Minister between those two parties.Madam Speaker may I indulge you in how the argument from the opposite member works. The member says that inflation drives wages up and that leads to bracket creep. The member's proposed bill sees every tax bracket change quasi-automatically based on inflation every three years and it would require an order by the Executive Council meaning the Government of the day would need to provide a veto against it. Can we please think about this? So the Government of the day is not required to actually state the tax changes that it supports; rather veto against automated or semi-automated tax changes. That goes against the very democratic principles that this House is based on. [Interruption] Not only that the change would require serious cuts to services while not delivering actually much money to Kiwis every week. [Interruption] There are two reasons that I oppose this—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! This is a robust debate but can we keep the interjections a little more rare and a little more reasonable thank you.INGRID LEARY: Thank you Madam Speaker. There are two reasons that I particularly oppose this bill. The first is about the process and the second is about the substance. The process really is around Government not being able to proactively set those thresholds but rather vetoing if the Government of the day disagrees. To my mind as a lawyer it feels akin to something like changing the burden of proof. The reason is this: we have said no to income tax changes for 98 percent of Kiwis. That is what we campaigned on. That is what the New Zealand public knew when they went to the polls. They agreed or disagreed and they cast their votes accordingly. How would it be then to suddenly after we came into power due to inflation change that threshold that we indicated of $180000 for 39c upwards to $185000 to $190000? My colleague Deborah Russell is quite right in saying that it is not fair on voters let alone taxpayers to be able to spring these changes on them without that mandate to do so that explicit mandate given that taxation is one of the key issues that New Zealand people vote on. I'd point out that the Opposition had the opportunity to support this during the Clark Government's time and they did not do so nor during their nine years of Government. So I question why they would do that now. Secondly I look at the substance and as has already been traversed this bill disproportionately benefits those on higher incomes. It has a regressive effect which is not surprising coming from the National Party and the ACT Party. Our focus is closing the inequality gap; it is not helping the rich get richer. My colleague Barbara Edmonds has already very carefully laid out the ways that we have been able to do that through our support: lifting main benefits reinstating the training incentive allowance expanding food in schools and delivering more insulation and home heating and so on. And I would just say that the policies that we're implementing as a Government are clearly working. Today we've seen unemployment has fallen to pre-COVID levels. We've seen that the average hourly wage rose 4 percent to $34.76 an hour. These are relevant to putting more money in the back pocket of everyday New Zealanders. So while it looks seductive to think that this member's bill will lead to tax cuts across the board in fact the member's bill will advantage those who are already advantaged. It will increase the inequality gap that clearly goes against this Government's mandate and I stand against it. Thank you Madam Speaker.