Taxation (Annual Rates of income Tax 2005-06) Bill, Taxation (Urgent Measures) Bill, Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill

That was an interesting rewrite of history from the Hon Bill English, who is now the champion of the working class. Interestingly, he did not mention anything from the legislation, at all. He did not mention the Working for Families package going to 160,000 families. Why not? He is embarrassed to speak against it because he knows that that lost the National Party the last election. Nobody believed that party, but they did, in great numbers, believe the party on this side of the House. Bill English did not mention the write-off of interest on student loans. Why not? Because the National Party had nothing to offer the young people of this country—those who are studying, those who are looking to study, or those who are still paying off a loan. So I suppose he was wise in that respect to ignore the wonderful features of this legislation.

I want to congratulate the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. This is wonderful legislation. Early in the term of this Government, there is a defining difference between this side of the House, and the parties that support us, and the opposite side of the House, which has no idea what ordinary New Zealanders want from their Government. Bill English talked with crocodile tears coming down his cheeks about the poor workers and how badly they are in need of a tax cut—which would be very little if they are on a low income, but which would be about $100 for MPs. He felt sorry for the nurses, the teachers, and the public servants who did not get a wage rise for 9 years under a National Government, and he says we should now give them a little bit by way of a tax cut.

I remind the Hon Bill English that it was the policies of the Government that he was part of that just about destroyed the public service in this country, that put nurses 10 years behind where they should have been in terms of earnings.

💬 Hon Bill English: That’s rubbish! You don’t believe that.

Bill English says it is a load of rubbish because he would not have given them the pay rise that this Government gave them; he would have kept them earning nothing, like National did when it was in power for 9 long years.

Earlier in the evening I heard a new National MP—I do not even know who the nondescript member was—feeling sorry for plumbers and electricians and saying how badly off they were under this Government. I remind that member—whomever it was—that the Rt Hon Bill Birch decided that we did not need plumbers and electricians in this country. That is why National did away with the Apprenticeship Act; it decided that this nation did not need them anymore. Poor old Bill English with his memory lapse, once again, forgets that that was the sort of policy his Government was responsible for.

This Government has brought in Modern Apprenticeships to make sure we have opportunities—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: The biggest con job ever!

The Hon Lockwood Smith, who gets very sensitive about which window or whatever he exits universities from, forgets that National destroyed the apprenticeship scheme. It said to the tradespeople of this country: “You don’t matter; we don’t need you anymore. There is a market out there that will determine whether we need plumbers, electricians, and builders.”—all those people that National members are now shedding crocodile tears for! Oh, they feel very sorry for them now. They were not sorry for 9 long years of screwing them down, and of saying to public servants: “You are worthless.”

National members still have not worked out that they threatened the entire public service of this country—the people who are responsible for building our roads, for looking after our children, for caring for the sick and the elderly. National members said to them: “You do not matter; you are all a waste of space. We do not want to spend our money on you anymore. We want to give the wealthy people of this country a tax cut, and all the rest of you can go and scrape together whatever you can.” That is why National lost the election. That is why National members will not speak harshly about these two wonderful measures that look after the families of our electorates, and that say to young families, who are working hard to survive, that this is a Government that cares. The Working for Families package is coming in greater numbers to greater numbers of people.

Also, we will give a really good incentive to all the grandparents, parents, and other people who want to go and study. Every single member over there said that they should not have it, they will misuse it, and they will abuse it. National members say that every New Zealander, given the chance, will abuse the system, like them. I am glad to say that very few people think like that. Every member opposite who got an education did so on the taxpayer, and those members are going to vote against this bill because they say: “It was good for me, but, damn, it’s no good for you. We do not want you to do it.”

It is like saying that all the students will go and borrow this money because it is free. There was, basically, a free education system in this country when I was growing up. One could go to university, and it was paid for by the taxpayers, who did so willingly. I did not hear all the people saying that they were going to go to university because it was free, and that they were going to abuse the system. Did they do it then? No. Will they do it under this system? No. But there is no understanding amongst the National Party of how real New Zealanders think. The National Party thinks they are all going to abuse the system, and I am glad to say that it is absolutely wrong on that.

This is very good legislation. I am proud to be part of this Government, which is getting this legislation through tonight. I know that the National Party will whinge and whine and it will show, once again, to the New Zealand public why it is unfit to govern.

One of the interesting facts about a lie is that, no matter how often it is repeated, it makes it no less a lie. The facts of the matter around apprenticeships are that in the early 1990s the National Government, when I was Minister, passed the Industry Training Act. It increased the number of apprentices in this country fivefold in 5 years, and that Labour Government that Mark Gosche is a part of has not changed the Industry Training Act at all, because he knows that it has been highly successful.

Mark Gosche claimed that National has no idea what ordinary New Zealanders want from their Government. I can tell Mark Gosche that ordinary New Zealanders do not want a Government that taxes them more and more. As they work harder, as their wages and salaries go up, they go into higher tax brackets, which means they pay more tax and take home no more pay. That is what is happening in this country. Despite increases in wages and salaries, the after-tax take-home pay under this Labour Government has not gone up, and New Zealanders do not like that.

New Zealanders do not like a Government that thinks it knows best. New Zealanders do not like Ministers who think they know best and that they should tax people more and more because people are too stupid to spend their own money and only these Labour Ministers know how their money should be spent.

It is a tragedy that tonight we are confirming these tax rates that mean New Zealanders will pay even more tax. As they get their wage increases, they will go into higher tax brackets and pay an even higher percentage of their income in tax. Of course, Dr Michael Cullen will then achieve even more massive surpluses and he can therefore claim he is being fiscally prudent. But he is grabbing massively more tax from his fellow New Zealanders—he is spending massively more money. As my colleague the Hon Bill English said, it is a billion dollars extra a year just to cover the increase in core public sector wages. When I was a Minister our total Budget increases a year were $600 million, and now just the wages of the core State sector each year will cost a billion dollars, with no other policy increases.

It is sad that today New Zealanders are not facing the prospects of lower tax rates, which they could have been had the Rt Hon Winston Peters chosen not to get into bed with Labour. Doug Woolerton must be very proud of the fact that tonight New Zealanders face higher taxes—because they will now face higher taxes. Confirming the same tax rates means that people will pay more tax. As their wages go up, they will go into higher tax brackets and pay more tax. Doug Woolerton must be struggling to justify how New Zealand First has done that to working New Zealanders.

I want to spend a little time on the Working for Families package that Mark Gosche claimed National did not want to talk about. We are very happy to talk about this package, because it is turning tens of thousands more New Zealand families into beneficiaries. That is wrong. Doug Woolerton, when he spoke before, claimed that I bang on about these issues around the Working for Families package. I do not want to be unfair to Doug Woolerton, but so many people do not understand—although I must say that Gordon Copeland is starting to understand, on the select committee. Gordon Copeland fought to get a bit put in the select committee’s report on this bill that showed that not everyone on the Government side was unmindful of the massive marginal tax rates that three-quarters of New Zealand’s families now face.

Most people think that the marginal tax rate they face is 21c in the dollar if they earn under $38,000, 33c if they earn up to $60,000, or 39c if they earn above $60,000. That is not true. Three-quarters of New Zealand families face far higher marginal tax rates. Any member in this Parliament could give an example, and I will tell them the marginal tax rate that a family will face. Let us just pluck a figure out of the air—say, a family on $60,000, which is well above the average. Now, we think $60,000 puts them on the 39 percent tax rate. If we are talking about a family, that is wrong. That is not what happens at all. Under the Working for Families package, a family on $60,000 with dependent children—whether one, two, three, four, five or six children—does not face a marginal tax rate of 39 percent, but, according to the Inland Revenue Department, pays 60.2 percent on every dollar earned over $60,000. The Government takes more of the next dollar earned than the family gets to keep.

We could name any income we like; it still applies. Take $90,000, for example, which is way above what most families earn. If the family earns another dollar, and there are three children, the marginal tax rate is 60.2 percent on that next dollar. This is just crazy stuff. Labour members say this package is good for families. Where is the incentive for families? Where is the reward for a family that wants to earn a bit more money to take the kids somewhere for Christmas? Let us look at the family with one child on $25,000, which is a low-income family. Maybe it is a woman on her own with one child, on the domestic purposes benefit, with earned income—wages—of $25,000. Do members know what tax she pays on her next dollar? She pays 92.2 percent tax. If she earns another dollar, she keeps 7.8c out of that dollar. For goodness’ sake! Yet the former president of New Zealand First has said I am banging on. Three-quarters of New Zealand’s families with children face those marginal tax rates, and that is what this Working for Families package is doing. It is not about banging on; it is not a technical thing.

R Doug Woolerton: Yes, it is.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Doug Woolerton says it is. Families face those marginal tax rates. If they earn another dollar, that is the tax they pay.

Let us take any combination—for example, someone with two children who has been on the unemployment benefit but is trying to get off the benefit. If the family was on $40,000 of earned income, then on the next dollar they would be taxed 54.2 percent. It is generally thought that the highest tax rate that people face is 39 percent. That is not true. Families face those sorts of marginal tax rates. It is not just technical; it is the rate they face. If they try to earn another $100, the worst-off families, our lowest-income families that are not on benefits, not on the standard domestic purposes benefit or unemployment benefit, our poorest families that are independent of the benefit system—and I want the Māori Party to listen, because I am sure Tariana Turia would be concerned about this, some of these may be Māori families—if they try to earn another $100 to buy Christmas presents for the children, they lose $101.20. They are worse off. It might be 10 hours extra work at $10 an hour to earn another $100, but they actually take home less pay!

Labour members think that that is good. Doug Woolerton thinks that it is good. This bill, although it does not introduce that, takes the number of families that are caught in that trap of facing a 101.2 percent tax rate from 1,000 at the moment. This year there are 1,000 families caught in that. When this bill is fully implemented, 3,600 more families will be caught in that trap, whereby they pay a 101.2 percent marginal tax rate. It is shameful what Labour is doing to those low-income families.

We had to endure hearing the Hon Bill English perpetuating the myth of the possibility of a coalition between New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and any and everybody and their mother’s dog, at the last election. That was simply not going to happen, and he knows it. [Interruption] Yes, I know all about the baubles. Then we had the Hon Lockwood Smith going on about the marginal tax rate, but what he will, again, not tell the people of New Zealand, in spite of everything he said—and we all know there is a point where it is difficult for people to admit things—is that the Working for Families package makes things better for the people. There will be more money in their hand at the end of the day to buy the Christmas presents, to do all the things he is talking about. The package ensures there is more money for those people to do that, and he knows it.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: They will buy their Christmas presents.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Of course! New Zealand First went on about increased wages at the election. That was our policy, but, no, the National Party would not support it; nor would Labour, for that matter. But at least Labour is making up the gap, in another way. That is why we support the Working for Families package.

We believe that the people of New Zealand should do it by themselves; they should have wages that are commensurate with the work they do—somewhere in line with those of Australia, not 30 percent out, give or take a percentage or so, which is where they are today. While I am talking about wages, let me address this business that Bill English has gone on about again—public sector wages rising more than private sector wages. He is right, but were those ratios right before? No, they were not. Nurses were underpaid, police were underpaid, and the armed services were underpaid. That is what the National Party would like to perpetuate. Public sector versus private sector ratios were not right before, so we are seeing a catch-up. I would have liked to see both the public sector and the private sector get a wage increase, but National did not agree with that. [Interruption]

They go on about tax cuts ad nauseam—I thank Katherine Rich—because tax cuts, in their view, are the answer to everything, but they did not talk about incentivising the tax system; they were just going to give a tax cut to whomever. New Zealand First in its agreement with the Labour Party will deliver some tax incentive, and we will go some way towards delivering recompense to older people, as well. But it is New Zealand First who is doing that and we will not be borrowing, as the National Party was going to have to do with its promises.

It is all very well for these people to go on about these things, but they did not win the election.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I do not know whether they have noticed it. I tell you what: some of those old men in a hurry at the back of the National Party caucus are going to be causing some hassles come next year—do not worry about that! No, National could not deliver those things, but New Zealand First is assisting in making sure those things happen. We are not absolutely 100 percent happy with the Working for Families package, but we are supporting it because it will help New Zealanders. We are not happy necessarily with doing away with interest on student loans. That policy was just to gazump what the National Party had offered, I might say. But we believe in a universal living allowance, and we have said so, and that is why we voted against Part 3.

I get back to the fact that if a policy would advantage New Zealanders and progress the country, then New Zealand members will support it, even though we did not invent it and it is not our policy, because that would be the right thing to do. It is all very well for those members to yell from the sidelines because they are upset that they did not win the election, and to carry on like trained seals—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Nine long years.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: —but we are here doing something. Yes, it has been 9 long years. Mr Assistant Speaker, I doubt that you believe this yourself, with due respect—and I know I should not bring you into the debate—but it could be 12 years. What are these old, new members of Parliament going to do? They are grey-haired now. They make you and me look young—which, of course, we do. Those people will be upset, and, my goodness gracious me, they will give this current front bench of the National Party a hurry-up when they start stamping their feet. There are some fearsome reputations at the back of the House, but the reputations are only one thing; it is the fearsome egos of those people that will be causing the problems in the years to come. But that is a sideshow that we do not have to pay for. That is a sideshow that we will be able to sit back and watch in the coming years.

Before I sit down I want to say something to the National Party members who say that tax cuts are the answer to everything, and that the people of New Zealand say they want tax cuts. Of course they do. If the National Party asks only half the question, and if the half it asks is “Do you want tax cuts?”, of course people will say yes. But if they are asked whether they want tax cuts and to cut the wages of nurses, or do away with schools, or do away with roading and all those things, then they are not so sure. They say they do not know that they want tax cuts, if that is what is going to happen. That is the second half of the question, which National has not been putting before the public of New Zealand.

I would like to take this opportunity to make a few key points on behalf of the Green Party during the third reading debate on the Taxation (Urgent Measures) Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2005-06) Bill, and the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill.

First of all, we were dismayed by the attitude of the Government in pushing this legislation through the select committee process with such urgency that there was no opportunity at all for any outside group to make submissions. After the first reading debate, representatives of a number of organisations approached me expressing their keenness to make submissions on aspects of this legislation. It is distressing that the select committee could not see its way clear to allow even a few key sector groups to put their points of view forward. The Green Party thinks it is a real pity that the normal processes of parliamentary democracy were set aside and not adhered to in this particular instance.

Secondly, I need to make clear why we are supporting this legislation. Despite the severe reservations we have about aspects of the Working for Families package and the way the legislation is being rushed though the House, the reason the Green Party cannot do anything but vote for this legislation tonight is that it amends the Student Loan Scheme Act so that borrowers can get a full interest write-off when they are living in New Zealand. Our policy has always been to get rid of the student loan scheme altogether, and, failing that, to reduce its negative impacts as quickly and efficaciously as possible. We know that students and graduates all over the country and elsewhere have been celebrating ever since Labour’s intention to amend the loan scheme was first announced, before the election. Even though this legislation does not go far enough, there is no way we could stand in the path of such beneficent progress.

Getting rid of the student loan interest for resident borrowers will wipe years off their repayment schedules. The money saved will make it much easier for new graduates to contemplate all those things that we from older generations of students took for granted once we started on our career paths—such as, being able to start a family, or buy our own home. The Green Party is delighted that life will be made a whole lot easier for students and ex-students because of the legislation we are passing tonight. But we will not stop working for the day that the whole student loan scheme is scrapped, fees are reduced to much lower levels, and every full-time tertiary student is entitled to a living allowance each week, regardless of his or her age or the income status of his or her parents.

The urgent need for a universal student allowance has only been made more pressing by news today that the latest statistics from StudyLink show that the number of people eligible for allowances continues to fall. In the July to September period this year there were over 4,000 fewer students getting an allowance than at the same time last year—a decrease of 7 percent. At the same time fees are going up around the country, and it is harder than ever for students to make ends meet. It is time Labour took the next step and made sure students got at least the bare minimum required to survive, so that their debt burden does not continue to spiral.

Thirdly and finally, I turn to the part of this legislation that amends the Income Tax Act to provide tax relief to some families through the Working for Families package. Although the Green Party supports the extension of the abatement cut-off point from $27,500 to $35,000, and the reduction in the rate of abatement from 30 percent to 20 percent, we remain deeply concerned by the underpinning inequity of Working for Families, which denies beneficiary families the same assistance that so-called working families get.

Any Government, but particularly a Labour Government, should be aware of basic principles of social justice and common sense—that families, including families’ children, need the same amount of money to live on regardless of the source of the parents’ income. It is simply unacceptable that Labour persists with its blind adherence to the 1990s ideology that says that unless at least one parent is in substantial paid employment, both adults and children within the family should therefore suffer an existence of harassed penury and perpetual indebtedness. At least a fifth of our children still live in poverty today. A large proportion of those kids come from sole parent and other beneficiary families. Many of those children are Māori. The legislation we are passing today gives more money to the slightly better-off families, while continuing to deny support to those families who are most in need. This legislation maintains the gap between the working and the beneficiary poor, with a discriminatory child tax credit, which will become the in-work payment from 1 July next year.

That is not good enough. It is high time Labour recognised the valuable contribution to society that people make in raising children, even when they are bringing them up on a benefit. The bringing up of children, even by those dependent on the State for support, should be seen as one of the most difficult but most honourable jobs going, and it should not be subject to the blatant discrimination upheld here tonight that is intrinsic to the whole concept that paid work is all that matters. The archaic doctrine of the deserving and the non-deserving poor should have been left in the 19th century where it belonged—it did not really belong there, either, but it definitely should not have been transported wholesale into the 21st century by a Labour Government.

I rise to oppose this legislation. It was an interesting contribution from Mr Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First. He reminded us that New Zealand First had campaigned to lift wages. What New Zealanders did not realise was that the only wage that would be lifted would be that of Mr Winston Peters. We did not realise that New Zealand First’s campaign was not about lifting the wages of hard-working New Zealanders but was all about the baubles of office and Winston Peters getting a ministerial salary. That is what the campaign was about, and New Zealand First has done nothing—nothing—to help the working people of New Zealand.

That is why ACT opposes this bill. There is a very simple measure—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will realise, as I do, that there are some rules about debates in this House, and one of them relates to the issue of relevance. So far we have learnt that the reason the member opposes the bill is that I have got a job. That is a gross waste of Parliament’s time. I know he is an inexperienced member, and that is one reason why he will stay in Opposition for the rest of his career, as brief as it might be, and as overspent as his budget was in the last campaign, but he is required to confine himself to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and to try, if he can—and that will be a remote possibility—to address the issue before the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 44/3, which allows—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: A very good ruling!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am on my feet. It allows a member some leeway in responding to criticism. But Mr Hide will come to order.

The other thing that Doug Woolerton told the House was that New Zealand First had won. I saw what happened on election night and Winston Peters lost the seat of Tauranga. The people of Tauranga dumped him.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no.

The member says “No, no, no.”, but the reality is that more people voted for Bob Clarkson—“the old man in a hurry”, they called him—than voted for Winston Peters. Why? Because Winston Peters had failed the people of Tauranga.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You overspent and so did he.

Everyone who won broke the rules, but not poor old Winston Peters, who lost the election, lost the seat of Tauranga. He is heading off to Malta—[Interruption] Steve Chadwick is excited. She is waving at me the original bill that has been split into three. Let me deal with those three bills. I look forward to hearing Mr Peters’ contribution and his explanation of how he won—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: After you? What a waste of time. It’s like taking candy off a baby.

That is what Bob Clarkson said it was, and he said it was like that in court, too. He said it was a hopeless court case.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Overspent.

Mr Peters sits there and he chips away. He used to be happy to be just the member for Tauranga. Now he is miserable to be just the member for nowhere. That is the problem with Mr Peters—the member from nowhere.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many seats have you got?

Mr Peters calls out asking how many seats we have. We have one—it is called Epsom—and he has none because he lost Tauranga at the last election. He is hanging on through the list. The people of Tauranga dumped him.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Muriel?

Let us get back to the legislation. I know that Mr Peters wants to talk about his loss because it weighs heavily on his mind.

A very simple thing we could do to help working people in New Zealand and, indeed, to help the country is to lower and flatten taxes. The 39c rate should go, the 33c rate should go, and we should make the top rate and the company tax rate 25c in the dollar. I do not think there is a respectable economist left in the world who does not think that sound tax policy is about flattening the tax system, not lengthening it as the Labour Government has done. Indeed, as my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith pointed out, under the Working for Families package someone on $60,000 with a few kids is paying an effective tax rate of 60 percent. If those people earn an extra $1 they lose 60c and they get to keep 40c, and somehow Mr Peters and Mr Cullen think that is a good idea.

When Mr Peters first came to the House he was a member of the National Party and he supported lower taxes, but he lost that seat too, actually. He is the only member in this House to have lost two seats, yet he expects to come down to this House and say he is a winner. Mr Peters has lost two seats in a row. He lost Hunua then Tauranga.

The other thing is that if we lowered taxes—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of having a fair comparison, I have to say that the member on his feet lost in 1996, lost in 1999, and lost in 2002, and now he regards himself as some sort of hero because he has finally won one out of four. What rate of success is that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that is not a point of order; it is a debating point.

That is all right, Madam Assistant Speaker; he is a man who has to get attention somehow. The people in Tauranga do not listen to him anymore. In fact, I heard that he is closing his office in Tauranga and shifting it to Auckland.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the question of relevance, and it is particularly relevant when a member on his feet tells a downright lie and says I am closing my office in Tauranga. That is important for the people in Tauranga, because they know that, unlike him, I am not a fly-by-nighter. The office stays open at the moment and he knows full well that is true.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows very well that he cannot insinuate that another member lied. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Assistant Speaker. Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member knows that he must withdraw and apologise, and that is the end of the matter. If it is a new point of order, that is different, but I also remind the member that we have had two points of order that are not points of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I said it was a downright lie. For you to raise objection to that means that he is owning up to being the perpetrator of it, which I did not quite say, did I. I said that the statement that I am closing my office in Tauranga is a downright lie. I did not say that he started it, but I am saying that what he is saying is a downright lie, and if he wants to be the originator and owner of it, then he would have cause to raise a point of order. But he did not, did he—you did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): It is my responsibility to rule on a matter like that. The member knows that that is very close to the wind. Certainly, I took that to be how the member had called it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty you have is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew and apologised, then deliberately repeated, on a point of order, exactly what you had complained about and what you had had him withdraw and apologise for. That was deliberately questioning your authority in this House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.

The member can object as much as he likes. You pulled him up for saying that what I had said was a downright lie. He was required to withdraw and apologise. He then raised a point of order and repeated exactly what you had asked him to withdraw and apologise for. I ask you, Madam Assistant Speaker, to require him to withdraw him and apologise for what he said and repeated on a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member was contesting the context in the way that he said it. I certainly did not rule in his favour.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In that case, is it all right for me to stand up in the House, as an Opposition MP, and say that what David Benson-Pope has told this House most days is a downright lie—because you have just ruled that Mr Peters can say that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide, I listened to the member, who was making a point of order about the context. I did not agree with him. He withdrew and apologised for the first point that I had pulled him up on. Please continue with your speech.

Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated.

I will not be seated, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on this matter. It is the end of the matter.

Well, that is great, thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, because we now have a new ruling in this House. Members can stand up and say that what Mr Benson-Pope said in the House was a downright lie, because that is what Mr Peters said, and that is what he got away with in this House. We can say someone is a downright liar, and it is a downright lie, and it is all OK.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will rule on what Mr Hide just did. Mr Hide absolutely contested my ruling. Mr Hide will now withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I thank Mr Peters, because what we can say is not that Mr Benson-Pope did anything wrong—because that is the point that Mr Peters made—but that what he said was not true.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide, I will give you another warning. What you are doing is completely irrelevant to the question. I ask you to come back to the legislation and speak to it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am making a point that you asked Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): You are doing it again. You are now contesting my ruling. I ask the member to desist or I will have no choice but to ask the member to leave.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re a good lad.

I am, because I won Epsom and he lost Tauranga. That is the thing that he cannot get over. That is what bothers Mr Peters. He lost his seat. Bob Clarkson got more votes than Winston Peters. Winston Peters is a loser. That is the trouble we have with Mr Peters, who is sitting on the sideline and chip, chip, chipping away. He will be proven a loser again this week. The idea that a New Zealand First member can get up in this House and somehow say that that party won the election is rubbish. Winston Peters from New Zealand First lost his seat.

ACT members oppose this legislation because we want taxes to come down, not sometime in the future, not next week, but now, for Christmas. We want the tax rate flattened. We do not agree with targeted assistance that puts people into a tax rate system of over 100 percent—[Interruption] Well, Steve Chadwick is another loser stumping up and down. We have a party of losers over there on the Labour benches. We oppose this legislation. We oppose the student loan interest write-off. It takes $2 billion off hard-working New Zealanders, off people such as truckdrivers, cleaners, and waitresses, and shifts that $2 billion across to people who are accountants, lawyers, political scientists, and lecturers—and some of them might even get a bauble or two, might lose their seats and become Minister of Foreign Affairs! We say that is wrong and unfair. The way to help the graduates of New Zealand is to drop their taxes to a flat rate of 20c or 25c; then they could pay off their loans.

But, wait, it gets even better. If we cut taxes there will be more investment, more entrepreneurship, more jobs, and a stronger economy. Instead of heading for the hard landing that Labour and Winston Peters will deliver to this country, we will have a strong, growing economy. We will have investment, businesses that are succeeding, and a strong economy. Under the Peters - Clark - Cullen Government we have an economy that is heading for a hard landing next year, and I say that this legislation—

💬 Steve Chadwick: There are only two of you.

Steve Chadwick has a lot to say. How did she get on in the election? Did she lose?

💬 Hon Member: No, got back.

Just got back, did she?

💬 Chris Tremain: That much.

Next time Steve Chadwick will be gone and she will be a loser, too. ACT says we should be cutting taxes tonight. We should be dropping the company rate and dropping the personal rate. That would be the best thing we could do for students. That would be the best thing that we could do for working New Zealanders.

What a strange speech from the last of two members of the ACT party. Of course, he was the member who deserted his whole party nationwide to rush back to Epsom to grossly overspend way above what the Electoral Act allows. The only reason the Labour Party is not taking that on is because Mr Hide will do more damage to National than anybody else can. So that, in a strategic sense, is the reason a legal case has not been brought against that man, who knows full well what he did, and what the law allows and disallows him to do.

The real issue is that in 1996 this man told the whole world, having grossly overspent in Epsom, that he would win Epsom. Then he had polls in 1999 saying he was way ahead in Epsom—but he was not, of course. He is a fiction creator. He is a merchant of misery in its worst sense. He has the effrontery to come in here as some sort of hero because he took the ACT party to two members, and his deputy leader, Muriel Newman, who did work hard and did try to give a fair representation, was cast by the wayside. That is the character of that man. He feels great. On election night he felt so rapt and ecstatic because he had survived in a party that was in the Doomsday Book that night, and somehow got one more seat. He was happy with that. He is delighted to be here despite the disaster of his campaign.

In contrast let me make this very clear. We had a bad campaign. I am the first to admit it. I am the first one to take responsibility for it, because some days on one’s best outing one’s best shot is not good enough. But then again my track record is to survive here longer than any other member. To have this four-flusher, fly-by-nighter talking about a loser is pretty rich, is it not? I am just grateful that I have seven colleagues in this Parliament, and we are the country’s third-biggest party.

I must say this—and we are talking about taxation—that is a party, of course, that had $15 for every dollar New Zealand First had to spend in the campaign. They have had tens of millions from business interests all wasted because they have never been able to show one outcome for all that investment. Here is my point to everyone in this House. Can they think of one thing that the ACT party has done in politics these last 9 years?

💬 Katherine Rich: IRD.

Oh excuse me. There was only one outcome from the Inland Revenue Department inquiry, and that was the man from Great Barrier Island who got there because I laid a complaint of perjury with the police. He got no one any refuge at all. Even his mate Henderson got done in the inquiry, did he not? That is Rodney Hide’s record. I ask members to name one thing—and they can ring all around New Zealand and ask any library, any political scientist, or any ACT supporter—that Rodney Hide and the ACT party have done for New Zealanders or anybody in the last 9 years. I will give members 5 minutes while I complete my speech.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: They lost Wellington Central.

Oh, that is right, they lost Wellington Central.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Look who to!

Well, I have to say they were up against stiff competition. But then again when the civil servants saw the ACT party policy for Wellington Central it was goodnight Richard. I know that Mr Hide had that in his mind, because as long as Richard Prebble stayed here he was going to look very bad by contrast. Prebble had experience and presence of mind. He had been here a long time, and had a record, unlike this fly-by-nighter, who suffers from the psychological condition of recognition hunger.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, but the member is going to have to come back to the bill.

I am getting to the bill, because the crux of this matter is, as it was in the campaign, whether it was better for students to get an interest write-off. I suppose one could say by way of the Government’s treatment of this, that if its intention is to try to keep students in New Zealand, then that is a logical, rational reason for going down that path. We disagree, and we have said so. Our policy was a universal student allowance and always has been.

But look at the contrast. The National Party came out with a massive promise for student loans—not big enough, of course. Then, if that was not bad enough, it topped it up with $3.5 billion of borrowings for the tax cuts it promised. I might well ask the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, and all those august so-called commentators in economics, as to where they were in the campaign when they did not raise a sound or a syllable, a mutter or a murmur, at this gross irresponsibility on the National Party’s part, backed up, of course, by the most irresponsible party in Parliament, the ACT party, led by Rodney Hide.

I am going to ask this. One is a hard-working ACT supporter out there giving one’s heart and soul to a cause because one happens to be one of the few mindless true believers, but nevertheless that is a worthy belief if one is in a democracy—

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Like Muriel.

—yes, like Muriel—working 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, just for the chance to come back here and represent her views. And then one finds that the party leadership has changed in a four-way contest—in a party of eight—and who have they got: Little Mussolini. He is the new leader. That is who they have got. How disappointing! And members can be certain that after the next election he will be gone. I will bet members any money they like that he will be gone after 2008. One thing that the far right do not like is a lack of performance and results. The second thing the far right do not like is having their message put out the way that he does it. The third thing the far right do not like is seeing something like student loans going up against tax cuts when they know one is affordable and one is not.

The tax cuts that the National Party offered were going to see this country borrowing $3.6 billion to finance them. I asked some people in the business world why on earth they were sitting back and not saying a word. They said to me that they hate the Labour Party so much they did not care what he says. What sort of rationale is that for so-called business leaders to desert every sacrifice of the last 21 years and all the reforms and all the changes?

💬 Rodney Hide: That’s what Tauranga did when it dumped this member.

There he goes. Rodney Hide is not prepared to wait for the court case. Like everything else in this House, no matter what the subject is, he knows everything about it. He is the world’s expert on anything and everything. Has he ever in his life made threepence on any investment he ever invested in? No, he has not. Has he ever run a business? No, he has not. Has he ever done a thing about what he speaks in terms of ideology and in terms of practice? No. In fact, he has not done a damn thing in his life. He does not fit the image of a parliamentarian of the far right, because what the far right like—and I have seen them around the rest of the world; I have seen them in New York, I have seen them in the United States—are men of style, of elegance, and of panache. They represent an image of what they are talking about. He is the very antithesis. This is just like the proletariat taking over the far right. In his case, it looks outrageous and it will not work.

New Zealand First’s point is we have an option with regard to student loans. We do believe that that was a better and more sound course of action to take. We believe, of course, in the universality—

💬 Rodney Hide: But the people of Tauranga didn’t back it.

It is like—I cannot say it is like a stuck record—a stuck iPod, or one that has 37,000 copies of the same song. That is what Rodney Hide is like, in fact—37,000 disks on an iPod, all the same. He says it loud. It is the idea that bombast and noise are a substitute for esoteric argument and debate. It is not, of course, and that is the reason why he is sitting over there, in Opposition again. While his colleagues around him are going grey in their hair, he loses his.

I have had quite a few inquiries from National MPs, who have written to me asking when they can get the golden age card. I have told them that, given their chances of promotion in the political environment of this country, that is a very good question and I will try to move it forward as fast as I can. I will add as many discounts and Fly Buys points as I am able, because not all of them have Rodney Hide’s arrangements whereby he flew to Fiji to take part in a seminar run by a fraudster who is now in jail in the United States, and then came home and would not answer any questions. Do members remember that? He tried to make out he did not take any pay. He was lying on the beach, giving an imitation of a walrus, for the whole week and getting paid, and he would not answer the questions. That is a fact and it probably explains why he finds so unattractive something done in the interests of the balance of students of this country. The repetition of a mindless debate, as Doug Woolerton rightly set out, he finds—

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

I have not finished. Sit down! That is a good lad!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member’s time has expired.

In the interests of consistency of ruling, it is very flattering to have the new Minister of Foreign Affairs spend his 10-minute third reading speech on the member for Epsom. People of Epsom appreciate the attention. Mr Peters spoke for only 33 seconds on the legislation. When I was responding to the honourable Doug Woolerton, you were on your feet to pull me back—quite rightly—but how come Mr Peters could stand up, and I think members in the House will support me, and speak for over 9 minutes on nothing to do with the legislation whatsoever.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member was brought back to the topic on a couple of occasions. Certainly, he had a wide-ranging speech and introduced matter from the legislation into his speech.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide, I have ruled on the matter.

Yes, I know.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order?

: Yes. I seek the leave of the House under Standing Order 350 to make a personal explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation—[Interruption]

It is about the allegations Mr Peters made about spending in Epsom. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is on his feet with a point of order. Would the member please clarify again what he is seeking leave for.

Yes. I want to make a personal explanation—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That member knows that while a point of order is being heard there will be silence.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s it about?

If Mr Peters would shut up for 2 minutes, I would tell him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): This is the final warning. When a member is on his feet with a point of order, he has the right to be heard.

Let me make this very plain. Mr Peters, through his speech, and he has done it before, made allegations about my breaking the electoral law and, in fact, committing corrupt practice—about overspending on my campaign in Epsom. I would like to use the opportunity in this House, under Standing Order 350, to make a personal explanation to rebut those allegations. That is what I am seeking leave to do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member has sought leave to make a personal explanation as he has outlined. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you think we are being unreasonable I want to make this point of order very clear, because one would not normally stop a member of Parliament from giving a personal explanation. I want to make this one point: if he came down here with his return of electoral expenses, we would know who was telling the truth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. An explanation is not sought. Leave has been denied. That is the end of the matter.

I think that in politics it is always important to know one’s limitations. Following the Rodney Hide and Winston Peters show, it would be very difficult for any member to be half as entertaining.

The New Zealand First member’s speech was very thought-provoking. But I would like to go back to what I thought was a stellar contribution from another New Zealand First member earlier in the night—the contribution of one Mr Doug Woolerton. I thought it was a very brave contribution, but in some ways it was a very sad contribution. As Mr Woolerton knows, he had the chance to play Santa this Christmas to many of his constituents; to be part of a Government that would put through tax cuts for all New Zealanders. I know that it is very sad for Mr Woolerton to be in a party where the only fun is the passing round of one bauble, which on occasion he might get to polish. But he had the chance to be part of a Government that would have passed tax cuts before Christmas for all New Zealanders. Those tax cuts would have offered 85 percent of all wage earners and salary earners in this country a tax rate of 19c in the dollar. New Zealand First members had the opportunity but they did not take it up. They had the opportunity to pass such legislation, rather than this miserly legislation arising from the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill, which I note the New Zealand First member who spoke before made no reference to whatsoever. In fact, if we had asked him the name of the bills, I doubt whether he would even have had an answer.

The bills arising from the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill put in place this Government’s visionless plan for this country. Where is the vision in that legislation? I will say what the vision for this country is. It is a vision where the middle classes become entrapped within the welfare system. It is a vision of greater amounts of debt for students, and slower repayments. The legislation does little to make better the lives of a lot of Kiwis who are currently struggling and paying more tax than they have to, to a Government that is intent on spending more than it has to in order to provide basic services.

There was an opportunity in this legislation to give something back to those hard-working Kiwis, those Kiwis who get up every day, go to work every morning, pay their taxes, and pay for the services within this country that they draw on. There was an opportunity to give something back to those families, pre-Christmas, but one of the first things the original bill did was to confirm the tax rates for next year. So there will be no relief for the electricians, the plumbers, and the gasfitters who came before the Commerce Committee to present their concerns on another bill that, at the moment, we are looking at. There is nothing for them in this legislation, nothing for those families who are struggling to pay for some of the basics. Although discussions of tax often focus on the wealthy, our concern is for those middle-income New Zealanders. If we look at the Working for Families package in particular, we see nothing more than income churning—the Government taking more than it needs to from some families, only to hand it back.

One of the concerning things that I found about the Labour Party website was that when one taps in an MP’s salary and the number of kids he or she has, one sees that some MPs will be eligible for assistance from the Working for Families package. What kind of message does that send to our country—putting some members of Parliament on welfare, on some kind of system where taxpayers’ money is handed back?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: You were giving the tax cuts.

One of the things about tax cuts that that member seems to forget is that a tax cut hands back an individual’s own money that he or she earned in the first place. It is not the Government’s money; it is the money of the worker who earned it in the first place. Therein lies the difference, I think, between Labour and National. National always understands that the money belongs to the person who earned it in the first place, and that if the Government is taking more money than it needs, then it should give it back, because it is not the Government’s money. Members opposite seem to think that it is their money, and that they can put their hands in workers’ pockets and take out more than they need, in order to fund a myriad of useless programmes, grants, and schemes.

The Government would be better off getting rid of those, and offering New Zealanders some of their own money back. If people are given a tax cut, they know that it was their money in the first place. This Government likes to extract the money from people, only to hand it back, so that the people who get those handouts will be grateful and pleased with the generosity of their Government. That is all a have, because, particularly for middle-income New Zealanders, it was their money in the first place, and it should never have been taken out of their pockets.

If we look at the 39 percent tax rate, which this side of the House thinks should be flattened, we see that the only people happy with it are the nation’s lawyers and accountants, who have done very well out of the 39 percent tax rate. They have brought in more fees than they can deal with by setting up trusts and all sorts of devices so that those who have the ability to have trusts and different kinds of set-ups do not have to pay tax in the first place.

National members think this legislation does not provide a vision for this country. Where is the vision in making more middle-income New Zealanders dependent on the State? Where is the vision in making more Kiwis take out bigger student loans than they need in the first place? This side of the House has made some good points about the fact that the legislation will encourage more students to take out greater loans than they need, and all parents with half a brain will say to their kids: “I’ll pay for your fees. You take the money from your student loan and put it into an interest-bearing account, at a minimum. You take out your loan and put it into some kind of investment.” When interest costs are removed from a deal, there is every incentive to take out more money than is needed, and to repay the loan at a slower rate than one has to. Why would students be motivated to pay back their student loans in a shorter space of time than they needed to? It is not just the National Party that says that; Treasury has said it. In fact, every single paper that has been done on the subject has said it.

Tonight we have heard many members on the opposite side of the House paint a rather rosy picture of New Zealand in the future. If that is the case, why does almost every single analyst, economist, or person who has studied the New Zealand economy say that next year things will get tough? Why did Treasury, in its briefing paper to Ministers, say that the Government needed to be careful with its expenditure because we are in for a rocky ride? Michael Cullen has an unusual approach to economics, in that he thinks it would be inflationary if tax cuts were given to Kiwis so that they could spend their own money, but if the Government takes their money and spends it on their behalf—on anything from hip-hop tours to overseas trips that are not warranted, or sending the Minister of Foreign Affairs away so that he does not have to spend time in the House—then that is not inflationary.

Well, National has better ideas as to how that money should be spent, and one of the things we need to do is to cut spending in a wide range of areas. If one is looking at a difference between parties, the difference that is seen tonight is the extent of the faith that different members of this House have in New Zealanders—whether they are able to make spending decisions on their own, or whether the Government needs to do that for them; whether people should pay for their education; and whether making loans free will actually change behaviour.

Labour seems to think that taking off the interest on student loans will not change behaviour, in the slightest. On this side of the House we know that all parents with half a brain, as I mentioned before, will encourage their kids to take out a loan, because they would be financially stupid not to do so. Free money is free money, and, certainly, if people are going to borrow elsewhere, they should make use of a loan that does not incur any interest rate. It is just nuts. On this side of the House we are predicting two things: student loan amounts will go up dramatically, and the repayment time will increase dramatically, as well. That is just basic Economics 101. In fact, it is not even that: some of our primary schools teach it in basic mathematics.

This legislation is not a vision for this country. Making more middle-income New Zealanders dependent on the State is no vision for this country, and, certainly, will not make us a country that can foot it with the rest of the OECD.

We have had a very interesting debate. We have had a line-up of people on the Opposition side of the House who have been able to articulate the things that matter to ordinary New Zealanders. [Interruption] Yes, they are. They were able to articulate the things that really matter to the ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders whom Government members would not know about. Those members have never invested a dollar, and they would not know what it is to take a risk. All they want to do, when the country is running huge surpluses, is to take more of people’s money. There was a golden opportunity, at this Christmas time and during the financial debates earlier on, for the Government to say it would give every hard-working New Zealander a tax cut. It is not a tax cut that they deserve; it is their own money. They are the ones who have earned that money. But, no, the misers on the Government benches say they cannot do that.

I will tell the House what Government members will do: they will say to hard-working students that they will make things easier for them, by taking the interest off student loans. What an incentive that will be! I can tell members what that will do. More students will borrow, and there will not be any faster repayments—absolutely not! If someone is given free money, it makes sense for that person to borrow more. Every parent will think about where he or she can get free money from. Parents will realise they can get it from this Labour Government, so they will use that money. Who will pay for interest-free student loans? I will tell members who will pay: hard-working New Zealanders. The mainstream, hard-working New Zealanders who work—they may be young business people, retired folk, single people, or people on some sort of benefit—are the ones who will foot the bill that comes about because this Government says that there will be no interest on student loans. There is absolutely no way that this measure will reduce the burden on students. There is a common-sense premise here: if one can get something for free, one will take advantage of it. If it is free for students, it will cost somebody else. That is how it works.

National’s policies at the election were about fairness and equity. They were about saying that if people worked hard, they would benefit. Business people know that if they borrow money, they invest in their future, be it in education or business—[Interruption] The Government members would not know about that, because they have never been in business. They have never put a dollar at risk. They do not know what it is to put their money at risk. We would go out and borrow money, and we would pay interest on it.

Our policy is very simple. We would say, for instance, that the interest was a tax deduction. That is what it is about. That would show fairness and equity, whereby everybody was treated the same. But no, the Government has a very one-sided approach to this issue. It says it will scrap the interest on student loans, but mark my words, there will not be a reduction in the number of students paying back their loans. Even the best estimates state that this policy will blow out into billions of dollars, and who will pay? You and I will pay, Madam Speaker. Hard-working Kiwis will have to foot the bill.

We have had some very good contributions this evening from some of our newer members. I was thrilled to see those new members have a go. Chris Finlayson was able to crystallise and articulate an argument with much flair and passion. He was right on that. He was able to show the important things about the legislation that make it an absolute farce, and to show why National members will not be voting for it. Kate Wilkinson, the lawyer, was able to bring those arguments together and say what matters to the people she represents.

And Jacqui Dean, well, she was the person who was able to win the seat of Otago. We saw at question time today how the Minister the Hon David Parker was not really with it—not even in respect of the questions I asked him. Jacqui Dean is somebody who knows what it is to have her feet on the ground, and she was able to bring forward those very important issues about how important business is. That is what we come back to. If we make an investment and have to pay interest on it—if that is what it is about—then let us make it fair and say that that is a cost of doing business. Sure, we should be able to claim back the interest on it as a tax deduction. But no, this Government says it will not allow that to happen and instead it will make loans interest-free for students. At the end of the day, that issue will be the Government’s demise.

Paula Bennett, the young member who sits behind me in the Chamber, has also been able to bring a feet-on-the-ground, common-sense approach to this legislation. This legislation does not actually help people; it makes beneficiaries out of them. We do not want that. We want people to move away from dependency. We want to give them the incentive to go out and do their thing. But no, we are passing this legislation tonight—well, National is not passing it; we will be voting against it, because it makes beneficiaries out of people. It makes them dependent. That is not the sort of legislation this country should pass.

Craig Foss, the young guy from Tukituki, also has his feet on the ground. He knows what this is about. He knows the sorts of things that the people of his region represent. He is another member who has been able to go out and win his seat from a Labour member, because he knows what makes the world go round. We are a party that stands for principles. There is nothing superficial about what we stand for; they are the things that are really important. We are a nation of small businesses. When we look at what makes the world go round and at what makes the economy tick in New Zealand, we see that it is about being able to take an investment, to invest in the things that are important, and to grow businesses, even if people have to borrow money. But if people borrow money, they should be able to claim the interest back as a tax deduction in order to reduce their taxable income. That is what business is about. Why do the Labour Party and its supporters not adopt that same sort of principle? It is common sense—it is absolute common sense.

Through the Committee stage and the third reading tonight, National members have been able to show how foolish this legislation is, because it makes beneficiaries out of people. We want to move people away from dependency. We want to give them a hand up, not a handout. That is what the student loan interest write-off will do. It will not make people more secure. It will not allow them to progress, grow, and move on. It will make them dependent.

Let us look at those who receive money through the Working for Families package. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith articulated very clearly this evening numerous examples that show that for every extra dollar people earn, they are not actually getting any benefit out of it at all. All that happens is that they are hit with high marginal tax rates. They have to ask whether it is really worth their while to work. That is what has happened. Yet National’s policy at the election, which was so well received, was that one could go out and do the extra hard yards, and National would have a flat tax rate of 19c in the dollar.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What happened?

That will come. The member should just wait, because next time around, that policy will be really good. It will be very relevant in Tauranga. When I go knocking on doors in Tauranga, the member will see how important our policy is.

We have been able to canvas a number of views here tonight, but I can tell members that National is the party that stands for fairness, equity, and low taxes. Student loan interest write-offs do not do that. The Working for Families package makes more people dependent. The carbon tax is coming up shortly. What will it do to the New Zealand economy? There is no vision. This Government has no vision for the future, unlike a National Government. It would make people care for New Zealand. We would say to them that we valued their input and contribution, and we would reward it through a lower tax system that showed that we thought they were important. We would not just give money away because it sounded good and because people may vote for us at the end of the day.

This legislation is a nonsense. National has voted against it right throughout the debate. We have had a line-up of great speakers who have been able to represent heartland New Zealand. They have been able to crystallise and articulate those arguments right through the Committee stage and the third reading, and those are the reasons why we will vote against the bill this evening.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I move that we have an extension of time. I have just received a call from an old constituent whose Mogadon is not working, and she reckons that 10 more minutes of such a speech would be perfect. So I move that we have an extension of time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member can only seek leave.

I seek leave, on behalf of an elderly constituent who rang me to say that her Mogadon is not working, for an extension of time. She tells me that 10 more minutes should just about do it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he can seek leave only for himself.