Foss Craig: Motions — Family Support Tax Credit—Increase 
Foss Craig: Motions — Family Support Tax Credit—Increase 
[Volume:638;Page:8353] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak calmly and intelligently about Government motion No. 1 unlike the previous speaker who is obviously very very angry. I can understand why he is very very angry because today I believe he visited Napier which was the home of a Labour seat for 54-odd years. It was taken from Labour—earned from Labour—by my good colleague Mr Chris Tremain. I can further see why the member is angry. It is because I guess when he flew up from Wellington he flew over the Wairarapa. He flew over what was another Labour seat that was won by Mr John Hayes a good candidate for National. Mr Cosgrove would have been remembering that these seats were all won in the 2005 election when these extra tranches for Working for Families were on the pledge card. So as the plane flew over the Wairarapa the angry member—who I presume spoke sense somewhere along the way in his speech but I honestly missed it—flew over Tukituki. Well that is the seat that I won which I took from a Labour Minister. It had been a Labour seat for quite some time and again I can just see Mr Clayton Cosgrove’s anger rising as he travelled up the country. Then he landed at Hawke’s Bay airport at Napier. As he got off the plane and Mr Fairbrother greeted him people probably looked away because no one was really quite sure who that gentleman was given he was the MP who turned about an 11000 majority into a vote of 15000 against himself and against the Labour Party. So no wonder the previous speaker was so angry and frustrated. 
I was also interested in the analogy that he was making about  
It Ain’t Half Hot Mum 
 because it reminded me of where the current Government is. It is a bit like  
Dad’s Army 
 because I can just hear the cry of “Don’t panic don’t panic!” from Dr Cullen at the moment as he looks at the polls. Those members look around and try not to panic in the face of the obvious catastrophe coming towards them. 
 I have asked a few seasoned colleagues who have been in the House a bit longer than I have why we are debating this motion. I asked those colleagues whether the Hon Michael Cullen put up the first tranche of Working for Families in the House as a debatable motion. The answer was no. Did Labour put up the student loans package as a debatable motion in the House? No. So we went through the other bits and pieces on the infamous pledge card and not one of them has been debated in the House as a motion. So I cannot quite understand why the most important thing facing this Government that needs to be debated in the House is a bit of self-gratification from a policy on a pledge card that was dubious anyway. Obviously Labour is stalling for time which is quite unusual because a few days ago it was running for time to try to get urgency as it whipped into action on the anti-smacking bill in order to vote for it. 
When the Hon Dr Michael Cullen who was first up spoke to this motion it was very interesting to watch all the list MPs on the Labour side furiously clapping away—working on their list-ranking speeches I guess. Those members seem to forget that around 60 percent of New Zealanders actually voted against this package. The party vote for Labour was nudging 40.5 percent. So around 60 percent actually voted against it. They were right to vote against its implementation and the way it has been executed. The way it works flies in the face of the good solid Kiwi way which is about rewards for hard work. It is about merit pay—work harder and earn harder to be rewarded. 
We need to be clear. This policy drives net family income. It virtually ignores gross family incomes because of the high marginal tax and the way the rebate system works. So another way to read that is that this policy controls net family income. There is nothing that good old-fashioned socialists—like the ones we have running the show at the moment on the other side of the House—like more than control. They want to control the net incomes of New Zealanders. They therefore want to control which way they swing and which way they vote and as we have recently seen they also want to control how we bring up our children. 
I work endlessly in my electorate and in this House to raise incomes for families and for all New Zealanders and to help them to achieve their aspirations to live their dreams and to set their sights wherever they want to be—it is patently obvious that I am fully in favour of this. I am all about empowering families; actually I am all about empowering all New Zealanders. I want all New Zealanders to hold on to more of what they earn. I want all New Zealanders to do their best as they see fit for themselves and their families. Again the way this current mechanism has been put in place is all about control. I want New Zealanders to be able to choose to save if at that time of their lives that is what they choose to do. I also want them to be able to enjoy their income if that is what they choose to do and I also want them to have the freedom to add value to our economy. In short I trust New Zealanders and National trusts New Zealanders to make the best decisions about themselves at whatever time of life they are in. 
Nothing demonstrates more clearly the differences between Labour and National than the way Labour has implemented this policy. This policy is about control; everything this Government is about is control be it in respect of smacking what one watches on TV or what one’s net income is. This was a flagship pledge on the infamous pledge card at the last election. It was one of those slogans on the pledge card which sadly the taxpayer had to fund and pay for. It was also—disgustingly quite frankly—made legal by retrospective legislation that was pushed under urgency late last year. Incidentally as I was writing a few notes I was wondering whether that $800000 had been paid back—there are about 95 days to go—and I am looking forward to the receipts being tabled in Parliament. 
Many studies in the last couple of years and in recent months have shown that there is a growing underclass in New Zealand and a growing poverty gap. Those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder have suffered more than ever over the last 6 or 7 years. In fact the National leader John Key raised this issue in a recent speech and Prime Minister Helen Clark denied it. She said he was talking nonsense. In fact New Zealanders acknowledged it and they thanked Mr John Key for raising the issue confronting it and starting to offer solutions. 
I guess the celebration of this motion by Labour begs the question as to why on earth $10 a week is necessary in the first place. Why is it needed? Besides the other points I have talked about—control and buying votes—I ask why on earth this is necessary. Well it is very simple actually. Billions and billions of extra funds and extra individual wages and salaries have been taken from the private sector in the form of extra taxation by this Government over the last 8 years—amounting to something like $60 billion that will be wandering through the Inland Revenue Department accounts this year. That is why Labour decided that it needed to give families another $10 per week. Can members not see the obvious—that the money should not be taken in the first place? The Cullen experiment of the past 8 years has failed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 states that a member cannot be referred to by one name—it is the full name or the title. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for putting me right. The experiment by the Hon Michael Cullen over the last 8 years has failed. The inflationary pigeons have come home to roost—they are coming right now. Wallets are empty and purses are empty. At the end of the week after paying the bills the only things left in those wallets and purses are numerous credit card receipts and suddenly the equity in one’s house starts to get eaten again. 
The experiment has failed. Costs are through the roof. Rates and electricity are through the roof. Voluntary school fees are through the roof. Interest rates are through the roof. Inflation is through the roof; the inflation rate is now based at 3 percent where once it was virtually illegal to go north of 2 percent. Under Dr Cullen’s experiment in respect of almost all economic measures over the last 5 or 6 years New Zealand has at best stood still and in most cases it has gone backwards. One thing that has also gone through the roof is the currency. The currency at 71-odd cents is absolutely killing New Zealand. Funnily enough New Zealand exporters are currently in Export Year. 
There is absolutely no hope of New Zealand climbing up the OECD ladder if productivity does not improve. As statistics that came out last week showed New Zealand’s productivity is sliding it is disgraceful and it is the worst we have seen in 19 years. In fact the only increase in labour productivity is people working longer hours for virtually the same money. Quite how Labour faces up to its union mates to explain that one I do not know but I guess Mr Andrew Little’s list ranking is probably improving by the day the quieter he stays on this. 
Inflation is absolutely totally corrosive to New Zealand. The inflation rate we now have is the product of the fiscal spend-up and Labour’s taking more than it needed to in the first place by way of Dr Cullen’s experiment. Those who are damaged the most by sliding productivity and high inflation are actually those whom Labour claims to support. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.