Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill

AMY ADAMS Link to this

—I am proud—based on what is best for New Zealand here and now. Let me tell members that right now New Zealanders need two things: security and a strong economy. This Budget gives them the beginnings of that. I can tell members that right now, if the choice is to have the tax cuts or to build our economy for a strong recovery, to create growth, to create jobs, to look to the future, and to keep an extra 1.5 percent off interest rates, the New Zealanders I have spoken to since the Budget was presented are all of the same view, and that view is that it would be irresponsible to give the tax cuts now, and irresponsible to let our debt balloon to 70 percent of GDP, which Labour would have us do, so that every family of four would have effectively a second mortgage of debt around their neck of $180,000 per family. That is what that party wants; that party wants New Zealand to have $180,000 of debt per family so that it can keep spending—never mind the consequences, chuck it on the plastic, and do not worry about the long term!

That party does not care about stability; it would not know how to build a strong economy. That is why in November last year the New Zealand public made its choice and chose John Key and Bill English to lead us through these hard times. The New Zealand public did that because they knew that Labour was incapable of getting New Zealand through this recession. They knew that it was very good at spending money—that is not hard—but when it came to making hard decisions in turbulent, ever-changing times, they put their faith in a National Government. Yesterday, with Bill English’s first Budget, and with the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill giving effect to the first part of that, we can see exactly why New Zealanders made that choice. We are not going to let debt cripple future generations of New Zealanders. I do not want my children growing up with a debt burden around their neck that is so massive that they have no chance of getting ahead and no chance of building a strong economy. This economy needs to have a minimum amount of debt.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

Yes, I say to Dr Smith, it did get worse. On 9 December we stood in this House under urgency—when I made one of my first speeches in this House—to put in place those tax cuts for 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011. We listened to Chris Tremain, the junior Government whip, who told us that Kiwis knew National had a big agenda and were proud to see a Government standing up and delivering on that agenda. That is what happened on 9 December. Dr Smith is right that more information then came to light: the recession was deeper and worse. So what was the reaction of John Key and the National Government? It was to continue down the path of the tax cuts that we are now repealing in Part 1.

Labour, at that time, said those tax cuts were unaffordable and irresponsible. Our position has been consistent. We can support this legislation, because we are being consistent. The inconsistency comes from the other side of the House. Members opposite knew, when they put in place those tax cuts on 9 December, that they were irresponsible and unaffordable. In the end, going right back from 8 October to 9 December this was a cynical election bribe from the National Party. It knew it had to up the ante on tax cuts; it knew it had to raise the bar to try to convince the public of New Zealand to vote for them. It was a cynical election bribe. John Key knew the state of the world economy; he had the IMF report. But on 9 December National still wanted to get its 100-day agenda in, and it did not care what the real state of the economy was. This is a cynical election bribe. Here we are today repealing what we did under urgency in the first place.

When we debated the legislation on 9 December we heard David Bennett tell us that this bill was the first part of delivering a growth economy, and that through personal tax cuts the bill would give the impetus needed for the New Zealand economy to grow and be successful. Let us bear in mind that this was meant to be the stimulus package. This was meant to stimulate the economy. David Bennett went on to say that the package was about giving some stimulation to the economy—well, clearly not any more! Yesterday’s Budget gives about as much stimulus to the economy as a decaffeinated latte. That is the stimulus package we saw yesterday from the National Government.

We also need to remember that Mr Key, in his speech on 8 October, was very clear that these tax cuts could be paid for through changes to KiwiSaver and changes to research and development tax credits. Mr Key said: “Taken together, the removal of the R&D tax credits and the changes to KiwiSaver mean National will not have to borrow or cut public services to fund our personal tax cuts.” Well, what we have discovered today is that National is not doing the tax cuts, but it is cutting public services and it is borrowing. So there we go—it is a triple whammy: the public of New Zealand not only are not getting the tax cuts but also are getting cuts to public services and we are seeing potential cuts to superannuation. And we have it here: there are cuts everywhere, but not on taxes.

This is a Budget of broken promises, and this is the biggest broken promise of them all. This is not a stimulus Budget. This Budget could have been about creating jobs, this Budget could have been about protecting New Zealanders in work. But, instead, it is a return for National on the fact that it made a cynical election bribe.

STUART NASH Link to this

And they certainly did not vote for Mr Paul Quinn. Actually, we want Louisa Wall back; we want a real rugby player back. Labour delivered, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen delivered, and Phil Goff will deliver once again, because he is not a man who says one thing, gets elected, and then does not deliver to the people of New Zealand. Phil Goff is a man of principle. The vast majority of New Zealanders now say that they voted for tax cuts, but National has taken those tax cuts away, so they are asking how they can trust Mr Key. They know they can trust Mr Goff, because he has always delivered for New Zealanders, so it will be: “Dear John; goodbye.”

This bill repeals National’s flagship election promise. This bill represents—no, it epitomises—National’s broken promises. What am I talking about? Members know what I am talking about: the pledges made by Mr Key. What was one of those pledges? He said that by reducing personal tax cuts on 1 April 2009, 1 April 2010, and 1 April 2011, he would ensure that New Zealanders could get ahead on their own steam. I ask Amy Adams whether that is right. It was a nice tune, but now National members are singing out of key. It was a good tune, but now the Government is out of key. National promised and promised, but they delivered the bill that I am speaking to. Part 1 consists solely of the repeal of 18 sections of the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Act 2008 and the repeal of three sections of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Act. There is nothing positive, nothing inspirational, and nothing at all except repeal, repeal, another repeal, and another repeal. Do members know what Part 1 repeals? It repeals all the tax cuts and the independent tax earner credits promised to the people of New Zealand.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD Link to this

Members might care to follow this—

Dr RAJEN PRASAD Link to this

It is true. But what we do see is the one thing that National has always done: destroy the good things that Labour has put in place. Muldoon wrecked the superannuation scheme. Your then Prime Minister wrecked the superannuation scheme, and you are doing it again. You are doing it now.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD Link to this

My apologies, Mr Chairman; thank you. I say to members opposite that their party wrecked it, and they are doing it again. They are taking away the promises given. They are taking out 10 years of contributions and really destroying the Cullen fund. That is what the commentators are saying. I come back to the point I started with. We would have expected those members to say sorry. They should say very clearly and unequivocally that they made a mistake, do it without the shouting that we have heard, and do it honourably.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Because members opposite know exactly the extent to which the Budget contains a lie. It is made most clear in Part 1. Part 1 actually increases taxes for working people in New Zealand. Part 1 increases taxes from what they would be if Part 1 was not here. That is the essence of this part. It puts taxes up for people; it does not put taxes down. Members opposite ought to reflect on that. I ask how many of them went campaigning around New Zealand saying that within 6 months of getting into Parliament they would be supporting a bill in Parliament to raise taxes, because that is what they are doing.

Members opposite should also realise that Labour has maintained a consistent position on taxes. We maintained that position before the election, when we told National members that what they were promising could not be afforded. We said they would have to borrow for the tax cuts, but they said that they would not borrow for them, and that they would find a way of paying for them because they are so important to them. They went through the election campaign saying that. They got elected, and said in the Speech from the Throne that they would introduce tax cuts. They brought in a bill in December, ironically under urgency, without the Opposition having seen the bill before it was debated—exactly like this bill. We did not see this bill until we started to debate Part 1, just a few calls ago. Once again National members asserted that tax cuts were affordable. But here they are today, raising taxes for New Zealanders.

In particular, I want to focus on the independent earner tax credit, because that is covered in Part 1, as well. It increases the tax burden for working New Zealanders who do not receive Working for Families. We were told during the election campaign that tens of thousands of workers had missed out on assistance from the Labour Government, and that they needed a National Government in order to get a new category of relief called the independent earner tax credit. But the changes to it are being abolished in Part 1. Those working people will continue to miss out because of what National is doing.

I want to take up a point that Simon Power raised last night. He said that the Opposition should be opposing this bill simply because we are the Opposition. He said that we needed to learn a lesson about how to be an Opposition. Well, I think we have taught the Leader of the House many, many lessons about how to be an Opposition. I signal today that there are many, many more tutorials to come for that member in the 2½ years ahead.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

I do not want to comment on the point of order, but it is a wonderful segue into my very next point.

Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this

Gerry Brownlee’s comment is exactly the kind of arrogance from the Government that will cause those members so much trouble. If Simon Power wants to tell us about being an Opposition, let us teach those members a lesson about being a Government. They should tell the truth. They should campaign on something, and then deliver on what they campaign on. That is the lesson of being a Government. They cannot deliver a Budget that contains a lie, like Part 1 does. It contains a direct lie to the people of New Zealand.

I know that the brat pack runs this Government, and I know that they wanted to be so different from the last National Government, which broke all its promises within 6 weeks of taking office. So with the strategic genius of Gerry Brownlee, they have decided to wait 6 months before they break their promises to the people of this country! They campaigned on the decade of deficits, saying how terrible the books were under Labour, that there was a decade of deficits, and that—hint, hint, boys—things might not have been so good. But they still budgeted for their tax cuts, which have now been replaced with a decade of deferrals by way of contribution to the Cullen fund, which we will come to in Part 2.

Part 1 lifts taxes for working people. It takes away the independent earner tax credit that we were told just 6 months ago, under urgency, was such an important new feature of the tax system. They knew that this was the situation, and they campaigned on something they knew could not be delivered. What a surprise to see the media headlines this morning about the tax cuts! All those hundreds of thousands of people who switched their votes between 2002, when National did not offer tax cuts, and 2008, when it did offer them, have been ripped off badly. The New Zealand Herald has got it right. It writes about the IOU from Bill English, the man who campaigned on tax reductions but who now brings a bill before the Parliament that, in Part 1, lifts taxes for people in this country. That is the effect that this bill has.

The one thing I have always admired about the National Party is the ability of its members to stick to the party line. Whatever line they are given, whatever line they are fed, they use religiously. During the election campaign they said that tax cuts were needed. After the election they said they would stick to their word, but today they have broken their promise. Members opposite so smugly and arrogantly ask to be rewarded for the fact that the No. 1 promise on their pledge card has now been broken. It is a disgrace.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

They did it after the election, with no notice, and under urgency. What the hell is urgent about this? What is urgent about closing off this scheme? Oh, a couple of hundred people might buy a house. It will take a month or two, and a couple of hundred people might buy a house. What a terrible thing to happen. And we are here. The calendar in the Chamber says that today is Thursday, but it is Friday morning. We were here until late last night, and we are back here this morning to do something that is supposedly urgent. We know that it is not urgent at all. It is doubtful whether it should happen. Frankly, in the end, if there was a proper debate, if the bill went to a select committee, the Labour Party could have come to the point of view that it is a good thing. I think it is fair to say that I agree with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne, that it was not a core part of KiwiSaver. It was a bit of an add-on to an add-on, if he will excuse the relationship with the member.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

There is a long story to be told, and it would have been good if the bill had gone to a select committee. The member is one who has defended, generally, the processes of this Parliament and generally opposed urgency on important matters, so it is somewhat incongruous that he is the person who is sitting in the chair on behalf of the Government. I do not feel too sorry for him. If we sup with the devil, we end up with this sort of thing. But that is the position that he is in. [ Interruption]

There is a member over there who keeps on chipping in. I came down to the Chamber after watching her on television, to try to work out whether what she was saying would make any more sense when I was here. And it does not. At that point, after listening to that member, I was tempted to move the closure myself. It was such a poor contribution. [Interruption] Hang on! We have both members going at once. We have the one who knows how to beat Peters, and the one who was beaten by Peters.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

The member was beaten by both of them. In Part 1 he was beaten by me, and in Part 2 he was beaten by Peters. He should get advice from “Cougar Bait” about how to beat Peters.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this

It is, and I am sorry I was diverted. It was such an opportunity to have the two members interjecting at once.

This is a very narrow debate. It is one that I would not put as one of the most important debates the House will have this year. But it is certainly a debate that should not be held under urgency. Because this bill is not going to a select committee, it needs the full attention of the House over an extended period in order to make sure that we all fully understand both this part and the implications of it, especially for people who are trying to buy their first house. The urgency process will stop that from happening.

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

I may well. When the KiwiSaver scheme was first being put through Parliament, the issue of mortgage diversion was raised. Then it was withdrawn. Then it came through again, very late, in the bill, at the insistence of someone whose name temporarily—hopefully, permanently—escapes me, and it found its way into the legislation.

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

I have not heard from him and, frankly, I have no desire to. Be that as it may, it was promoted as being a way in which people who were getting into their first home could set aside some of their KiwiSaver contributions as a contribution towards the payment of their mortgage. In fact, what transpired once the scheme was put in place was that a number of the banks took the view that any diversion had to be over and above the original mortgage repayments. In other words, the notion that lay behind the original concept of diversion was overtaken already. To some extent, that counted against the intent of the original policy.

I looked at this issue again earlier this year because I was curious to know what the uptake had been, and in the light of the changes to KiwiSaver that were made last December, I thought it was timely to look at just where this particular proposal stood. In fact, we discovered that fewer than 600 people had taken up the advantage. That was at a time when KiwiSaver membership had soared to 1 million. I say to members opposite—it is worth reminding them when they talk about KiwiSaver being gutted—that, in fact, what has happened is that this year, when membership of KiwiSaver passed 1 million, we surpassed our 2015 target. We got there about 6 years earlier. It is hardly a suggestion that KiwiSaver is being run down. So 600 people, max, out of about 1 million - plus members suggests that this is not a particularly prudent investment.

I say to the Green members, who last night voiced some concern about this proposal during the second reading debate, that the reason why we are closing off this scheme is simply that the numbers do not justify its retention. We are saying to the people who are currently in the scheme that their entitlement will remain and it will be a matter for their particular fund provider to determine whether it wishes to offer the facility. But for new entrants we needed to make a closure date, and we selected 1 June as being the most convenient in order to give certainty to people and to give some sense of clarity.

The member who spoke before me questioned why this is being done at this time when a maximum of 200 people—that was his figure—may be adversely affected. I suspect that that is an optimistically high figure, actually. The number of people expressing interest in this scheme continues to diminish.

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

Well, frankly, I do not think the outcome would have been much different. This is a comparatively small measure. It affects very few people in New Zealand. No one will lose from it—

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

I know how many are in the scheme at the moment. There is no great evidence of a huge well of people expressing interest in mortgage diversion. I would make the point that one—

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

Hang on; I think the member is—

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

If the Hutt South battle could go somewhere else, I will answer the member’s question.

The point that Mr Mallard makes is actually the core of this issue, and I want to, if I may, take a moment to go through it. What he is saying, in effect, is that there will be people out there at the moment, potentially, considering the purchase of their first home and worrying about whether the absence of this diversion will affect that purchase. The point I am making is that when the scheme was originally conceived, the notion was that people would be able to divert their KiwiSaver contributions to their mortgage repayments. What has transpired subsequently is that the financial institutions have said: “No, not quite. What we will do is take your normal mortgage repayment and then treat any KiwiSaver diversion over and above that. In other words, you can’t do it first up. You have to be meeting your primary set of responsibilities, and then we’ll look at any additional payments being diverted.”

In other words, the new-home buyer who is wondering at the moment whether he or she is being disadvantaged is not being disadvantaged because he or she would still have to meet the primary mortgage repayments before he or she would—

Hon PETER DUNNE Link to this

That, of course, was during the time of the previous Government. The member may not want to go too far down that path. But that is the background to why this provision is being removed. It was a good idea, but it has not worked.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

I am talking about Part 2, which is about KiwiSaver. It is a very broad area, Mr Chairman. It is very important, because a number of people who at this time might be looking to keep up their retirement savings would also have a mortgage. At a select committee we would have been able to tease that out. At a select committee we would have been able to discuss whether the balance is right and what impact it will have. As times get tougher, was there likely to be more uptake of this measure? If so, and if there were administrative problems with how it was run, how could we fix them? Labour members think that this change is significant enough to go to a select committee, and it should have. It does not have to be made right now. It does not need to be done today under urgency. Given that New Zealand superannuation is not guaranteed in the future, and given that we do not know how it will be paid for, it is a fact that—

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

He did give a personal guarantee, but it is all very well to say that New Zealand superannuation will be there, and then cut the funding for it. He cannot have it both ways. Last time Bill English was the Minister of Finance he cut New Zealand superannuation. This time he has found a sneakier way of doing it, coming round the back and saying it will be fine.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think I was misled by the mention of the word “KiwiSaver” in this part, but I will keep my comments to mortgage diversion. However, it is not possible to talk about the mortgage diversion part of KiwiSaver without making reference to superannuation and KiwiSaver. I guess I was also responding to interjections about superannuation from the other side of the Chamber. I believe that it is within the Standing Orders for me to do so. I was not responding to those from Mr McClay, because I could not understand what he was saying, but certainly those from Mr Woodhouse.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

Mr Coleman should calm down. I am not getting personal and nasty. Jonathan Coleman accusing me of being personal and nasty is like Jack the Ripper criticising domestic violence, as Bill English likes to say. This part of the bill should have been referred to a select committee, because a mortgage diversion process—

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is really hard to make the jokes work when the National members just do not get them. In any case, I thank my colleague—

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

—that is right—Trevor Mallard. I am so pleased that he is my moral compass in this Chamber. I have completely lost my train of thought, now!

Part 2 is about mortgage diversion, and it should have gone to a select committee. I look forward to a National member taking a call to explain why it could not have gone to a select committee. Those members may say that it is unimportant. Well, it might be unimportant for them, but it is probably not unimportant for the people already in the scheme, and it is probably not unimportant for the people who are looking at their bank balances and at last night’s Budget, realising there is nothing in the Budget for them, and asking themselves how they are going to save for their retirement, which they now have to do, as well as make mortgage repayments. The mortgage diversion scheme may well have been an answer for them. But we will never know how many people are in that position, because we do not have the opportunity to ask the public what they think. That has become a little bit of a hallmark of this Government.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

—over a million people are enrolled—is a fantastic achievement. It shows that the right decision was taken at the outset, which was to try to turn round the lack of a savings culture in this country. We specifically designed KiwiSaver with the Kiwi saver in mind—that is, to use the inertia that would inevitably exist from having compulsory enrolment, by not having a provision for people to remain compulsorily within the scheme. It would not apply across the board. People would automatically be enrolled in the scheme, and they would have to take steps to pull themselves out of the scheme, which I think is a very sensible way to go. It took advantage of that good old Kiwi mentality of inertia: “I can’t be bothered to do anything about it.” Anyway, it has been a fantastic success in that regard.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

The reason I am not in it is that, unlike a lot of New Zealanders, I exercised my right to pull out of the scheme when I was automatically enrolled in it, because I am covered by the parliamentary superannuation scheme that existed at the time I became—

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

That is right; I am one of the very lucky people who belongs to that.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

To be honest, and given that the members have chipped me because somehow they think that this is a lack of faith in KiwiSaver, I tell them that it is quite the contrary. I thought it was immoral to take money from the public purse, for the contribution that I already have, for my superannuation scheme. Actually, very few MPs in this Parliament are covered by the superannuation scheme that I have the privilege to belong to. I know that Trevor is not in it, either, because—

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

—sorry—the Hon Trevor Mallard was out of Parliament between 1990 and 1993, when a wonderful Minister of the Crown, a guy called the Rt Hon Bill Birch, destroyed the very, very good scheme that was in place at the time. So, there you go! I was chipped by members opposite, but I believe that my decision not to be in KiwiSaver, merely to get the $1,000 contribution, was an honourable position to take.

I was not aware that this provision covering mortgage diversion was to be repealed, so my issue is about process. As I have said, we went through a number of iterations before we arrived at the KiwiSaver proposal. It was interesting to listen to the Minister talk about a man—whose name is apparently not going to be mentioned in this debate—who sat on the select committee. I think it was Gordon Copeland; I will hazard a guess there.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

He dare not speak the name—that is right.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

Well, that is right; I think his direct line of communication outside this place was somewhat greater than others of us might experience.

But leaving all that aside, the point is that I was very interested to hear the Minister say that in fact the banks had responded to the introduction of this provision in what I think is quite a sensible way—by saying that it is not a mortgage diversion facility available for people’s ordinary KiwiSaver contributions; it is actually a mortgage diversion facility available for people who want to pay off their mortgage a little bit more quickly. When we think of the intention of KiwiSaver, and of people improving their equity in their homes, we know that that is the way most New Zealanders have saved over many generations. I think that a lot of people have taken the approach of paying off their mortgage in order to ensure their future, so it is a similar process to KiwiSaver in that regard.

Given that banks have adopted this process of not taking it off the actual contribution to people’s normal mortgage repayments, I am left asking the question: why are we repealing this? It seems as though the banks have adopted a relatively sensible approach to it and, if that is the case, why then does it need to be repealed? As the Minister said, a relatively small number of people are affected. If that is the only reason, is that a good enough reason? That is why I would have preferred this part of the bill to go to a select committee.

The debate on Part 1 was pretty cut and dried; it was black and white. But I am wondering whether the debate on Part 2 will be so cut and dried, and whether this is the right thing to do. Was it the banks that came to the Government to ask it to repeal this provision, or is this simply Gordon Copeland payback? Now that he has gone, we can get rid of it.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

As that member has said, it could be divine retribution. I think these are the issues that we could explore.

I probably would have felt totally comfortable about this provision if it was a straight mortgage diversion for the ordinary mortgage payments. But the fact that the banks and the other KiwiSaver providers have not interpreted it in that way, and have actually applied it in a way that I think is quite sensible, makes me wonder why we should take this out. It seems to be quite a useful alternative that is available to those who want to increase their equity in their own homes, rather than making a contribution to KiwiSaver at a particular time. I, personally, think that the legislation as it was finally drafted in that regard, in relation to the very powerful advocacy of one Gordon Copeland, was intended by him to be a mortgage diversion, so one could pay off one’s ordinary mortgage rates. It sounds from what the Minister has said that the banks and others have responded in a way that, in my way of thinking, is more in keeping with the original design of the scheme than perhaps an open mortgage diversion facility would be. I am quite keen to hear a little bit more about it; I think we should tease the debate out. It has not gone to select committee, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those issues.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this

There we go; we finally get to the heart of it. The system works and it is about retribution!

We heard a lot from the other side of the Chamber about Labour not being prepared to deliver tax credits. But through KiwiSaver, those tax credits were delivered and they were targeted. It was just like the research and development tax credits. It was about targeting them to where they were most valuable and where they would serve the best purpose, unlike this broad-brush, blunt-instrument approach to personal tax credits that the Government is so fixated with.

Just before Bill English started trying to sell the cuts to KiwiSaver, he said: “The reality is that over the next 5 years or so, the fiscal capacity of the Government will be significantly less.” The Minister of Finance was able to predict the constraints that the Government would come under when it came to slashing and burning KiwiSaver, but for some reason back in December he was not able to predict that the fiscal situation the Government was facing would mean that tax cuts would not be delivered. He has told us time and time again that things are worse since December and that the decision on tax cuts was made in a different environment, yet he was able to predict the cut and burn to KiwiSaver. I wonder why he was not able to predict the lack of tax cuts back then. That is a very good question; it is just another flip-flop.

KiwiSaver is about giving people certainty in their retirement. The reason it is not compulsory is so that there is a capacity to maintain universal superannuation. As good as KiwiSaver is, the amount that people can save for their retirement is still entirely dependent on their income throughout their lives. We need to maintain a universal level of superannuation to make sure that there is a baseline level of superannuation that will take care of our elderly. When people have worked hard all their lives, we need to take care of them. This Government is tweaking KiwiSaver, cutting it back, and mucking around with it.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this

There is a new thing going on that is relevant: it is not only the manual labourers but also people like Mr Quinn who are losing their employment.

The last time that Māori had an opportunity to ensure that they could get mortgages and extend mortgages was when the Labour Government put through benefit capitalisation. This facility was another chance. Michael Cullen said we should not have tax cuts, because they would not work, and the Labour Government was consistent about that. National has done the biggest flip-flop ever. One minute National was saying tax cuts had to be put through under urgency, and now it is taking them away. Taking out mortgage diversion is the same thing. You see, KiwiSaver gave Māori workers hope. For once they could start to save, like a lot of working Pākehās and Asians in this country. It gave them hope. Then we said we would have a bit of a rest, and we pulled the 2 percent contribution.

A lot of what is going on, like the Māori distribution, is projected out 10 years, or out to 2020. But it is not; it is a purposeful removal to stymie. When 18 jobs are lost in Pahīatua and mortgages are affected, this measure certainly affects those people. I appreciated the Minister’s analysis. He said the maximum benefit has been gained by people earning more than $104,000. Let me tell him how the Indians bought all the dairies in this country. They clustered together, they put their mortgages together, and they ensured that they looked after the whānau. What is wrong with that? Why does that not beat the $104,000 benchmark? This is about helping people who have, and putting aside the Māori people.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this

No, it is not another “Parekura-ism”. This is about Mr Quinn’s people, the people he does not care about. He should sit there and be quiet. He makes believe that this was a Māori Budget, but it gave them nothing. We settled Mr Quinn’s Treaty claim, He was greasing up in our office. We restructured his trust. We made sure that he could go off and do that. He knows that a lot of his Whakatōhea people are being put at a wicked disadvantage.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this

Tūhoe, or wherever. Mr Quinn, who sits there smugly with his mates, knows as well as I do that the Budget has broken a lot of promises. In terms of KiwiSaver and mortgage diversion, I plead with Mr Dunne that when this bill goes to a select committee—