工党法律委员会、统计发言人、民族事务副发言人 霍建强 （Raymond Huo）
2月10日，就在John Key总理新年发表施政方针要涨GST引发一片怒气悲声的同时，同一个总理选前信誓旦旦说不涨GST的视频被媒体曝光。对约翰基总理公信力的质疑即刻成为国人关注的焦点。

当日下午的Dominion Post登出一幅漫画，画着总理肖像，肖像的左边一句话：我跟大家保证2025前赶上澳洲是能实现的。右边也是一句话：（为什么能实现呢？）因为到了2025年我们全都要移民到澳大利亚去了。

Dominion Post上的漫画基本反映了主流媒体对总理讲话的态度---还算客气的。新西兰先驱报的政治评论员John Amstrong则明明白白给总理新年施针方针打4分（以满分10分计），就是说，不及格。

                        发展经济乏术，涨GST伤根本

星期二总理发表讲话之后，各党展开辩论。工党有11位议员参加了星期二的辩论，我是其中之一。辩论发言中我说，总理讲话后不到半小时，新西兰先驱报网站上就发表了三篇比较有重量的评述，其一是John Amstrong的文章,他说总理之前宣称发展经济要大踏步前进，现在看倒像是地上爬行。其二是经济版主编Brian Fallow说：总理一直强调税改是经济的一个杠杆，但是总理讲话给人的印象是----他不是手握着这个杠杆，而只是小指头在杠杆上轻轻弹了一下。第三篇来自经济评论员Bernard Hickey---他揭评得最彻底，直指总理讲话就是让我们的下一代（generation X and Y）赶早离开新西兰。因为国家照这样发展下去，年青人是没法有前途的。

我们工党的意见，正如领袖Hon Phil Goff指出的：总理讲话其实只证明了一个观点---也就是本国央行行长Dr.Allan Bollard讲过的---即新西兰想赶超澳洲是根本不可能的。因为总理所承诺的国家党政策，实际上都很空洞无物，模模糊糊。唯一一个具体的，就是有可能涨GST。一涉及涨GST，大家难免会想起2008年10月份，当时还是反对党领袖的John Key在接受新西兰先驱报记者采访时，作了一个非常坚决的表态---他说如果我当上总理，只要能做几桩正经事，经济就能得到发展，根本不用涨GST和提高个人税率。好，现在以他上台后的作为来对照他的旧论，我们就会发现国家党所谓发展经济就像孔雀一样，开屏开得漂亮眩目，却不见有的放矢的实际政策。缺乏实在措施的同时，他们就随便挑一条来做，结果就选了对中产、中薪及以下阶层伤害最大的一条：涨GST。

如果GST从12.5% 涨到15%，国家进帐一年能多19.5亿---这是税改工作小组算的帐。而财政部在总理讲话之前也作过测算，结论是GST涨到15%以后，国家能收到21.5亿。总理就想，只涨GST不是要得罪劳苦大众吗，那么也把福利涨一涨就扯平了。但是，补贴各种福利的所有需求，恰恰就得花19.5亿。就是说，所有人都掏腰包给国库19.5亿（或者按财政部算的21.5亿）之后，国库补贴福利再支出19.5亿----岂不是正好两相抵消？！既然如此，涨GST意义何在？

           国家党 “多劳多得”的背后逻辑：穷者多劳，富者多得

如果真是把个人所得税从38%降到 30%，公司税降到30%，加上各种投资的税降到30%，总体一年所需要的国家支出至少是16亿。前面算过，即使按GST令国库进帐21.5亿来算，除掉补贴各项福利用掉19.5亿，便只剩下区区2亿来补16亿的降税缺口。这么简单一算，涨GST到15%是划不来的，为什么国家党还坚持要这么做呢？实际这里面的真正含义是：国家党掏全体百姓的腰包去补贴全国3% 至5%的顶端高收入阶层。因为，若把最高税率从38%降到 30%，比如总理这样拿30多万年薪的人，一周就可以多拿509块钱。而Telecom总裁Paul Reynolds一周可以多得2600块钱。所以国家党所谓多劳多得完全是个荒谬的逻辑。

国家党概念下的“多劳多得”---意味着年薪20万到100万的富裕阶层，肯定能多劳多得。然而辛苦的打工一族，哪怕许多人甚至打好几份工，但凡年薪在7万以下的，根本得不到什么税改好处。所以，以全国人民补贴顶端少数高收入阶层为事实核心的所谓“多劳多得”完全是误导，是劫贫济富。

            景气一低再低，失业率独高不下，新西兰在大步倒退

回顾国家党执政至今的景气状况，一切都是低迷、低迷、低迷，独有一样东西居高不下----失业率。工党执政其间，本国失业率始终都比澳大利亚低。但国家党执政后，仅一年时间，失业率就高出澳洲30%----现在我国失业人口有16万8千人。我在国会辩论时针对这个问题也向黄部长提出：我们不能忘记亚裔移民的失业率现已达到9.2%，是高于全国平均失业率的。黄部长在她的讲话中提出她今年会有一个大举措，要办Ethnic Forum—少数民族论坛。我呼吁黄部长做些实事比动不动就办论坛好。我们还记得总理去年大张旗鼓办就业峰会，结果失业大军只增无减，16万8千人的失业数字是摆在他面前的一个巨大问号---工作在哪里？

新西兰制造与出口商协会的副总载John Walley在总理发表讲话当天说过：“就业随投资而生，便如夜晚跟着白天（jobs follow investment as night follows day）”---我很同意。令人悲哀的是，以劫贫济富涨GST为重大举措的总理新年政纲，让新西兰人明天不得不面对另一个漫漫长日。

（附：霍议员针对总理新年讲话的国会辩论记录）
霍议员针对总理新年讲话的国会辩论记录

Debate on PM’s Statement 9 February 2010
Mr Speaker

This afternoon, almost immediately after the Prime Minster delivered his Statement to Parliament, the nzherald.co.nz website published three opinion articles from three influential commentators. 
Mr John Armstrong started by saying that “John Key's promised quick march towards economic nirvana still looks like progressing at little more than a crawl.” Note the word “still”.
Brian Fallow went a little further: “Tax, the prime minister proclaims, is a powerful lever for the Government to boost the economy's performance. It's a pity then that instead of grasping that lever he is proposing to just crook his little finger around it.” He endorsed the tax working group's analysis of the problems but then went on to rule out most of the options the working group put up for addressing these shortcomings.
Bernard Hickey’s comment said it all: “John Key has just sent Generations X and Y a clear message: Leave the country now.”
Just as the Leader of the Opposition Hon Phil Goff said in his reply to the Prime Minister’s Statement that once again, we’ve heard the rhetoric but there is no substance. It’s proved Dr Alan Bollard right – Prime Minister John Key’s promise to catch up with Australia is a hollow one – there is nothing in this speech that represents step change.
But the problem is – let me quote Bernard Hickey again – that the Prime Minister “did worse than nothing. He shut down the debate”.
And when his Government needed to do something, he picked up an option that would hit the most vulnerable the hardest. Why? Because by raising GST it would hurt most those who have to spend all their income to make ends meet and particularly those with children or the elderly to look after. Culturally speaking, Asians do take the responsibility for looking after their parents when they become less independent 
It’s very kind for the Prime Minister to say that he is acutely aware of the effect that a rise in GST could have on lower income families. Therefore, he said should an increase occur it would have to be accompanied by across-the-board reductions in personal taxes, as well as up-front increases in benefits, New Zealand Superannuation, and Working for Families payments.
Let’s do a simple math. Compensating people for the rise would have leave just $200 million more in revenue out of the $2.15 billion in tax take from extra GST, according to Treasury. $200 million out of $2.15 billion. What’s the point?
Mr John Key while Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying in the Herald in October 2008 that if National was elected and did a half decent job at growing the economy, then increasing GST and the top tax rate would not be necessary. It sounded like an admission that National had failed on the economy.
Even the Tax Working Group acknowledged that in terms of current income a higher GST tends to be slightly regressive. They added: “There were mixed views within the Group as to whether the efficiency benefits from increasing GST would be sufficient to outweigh possible equity effects.”
Right this morning I posted a short article on the Labour MPs’ blog, Red Alert: “Focus on the bottom 50, not the top 5”. I borrowed the idea from my friend Keith Ng. his research shows that New Zealand’s tax system is less progressive than Australia’s, that is, higher income earners in Australia pay more tax both proportionately and in absolute terms.
In New Zealand, the total income earned by bottom 50% of taxpayers is about 17% proportionately and the total tax they pay is 12%. While in Australia, the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay the same proportion of tax of 12% but the total income they earned is 25%. That is to say Australia’s bottom 50% of taxpayers have a bigger share of the total income, which means their income is more equitably distributed in Australia before tax is taken into account.
If the National Government is serious about catching up with Australia, focusing on the bottom 50, not only the top five seems to be the starting point.
It also helps to understand as to why New Zealand incomes have fallen behind the countries we like to compare ourselves with, including Australia.
Between 1990 and 1999, the gap between wages in Australia and New Zealand increased from 18.9% to 28.4%. Since then it has barely moved. Under the last National Government over long 9 years, average real weekly earnings increased by a total of only $1.31 a week in 1990 dollars. In sharp contrast, under the 8 years of a Labour-led Government, the rate of increase has been 30 times that level. However, over the past year under National, we have fallen further behind Australia. New Zealand has gone backwards not forwards. The National Government has widened the gap not narrowed it.
The only thing that has been increased steadily, however, is the unemployment rate. New Zealand’s unemployment, always lower than Australia’s, is now 30% higher. Where is the plan today to get 168,000 unemployed Kiwis back to work?
Later this afternoon, we had the pleasure to watch the speech by the Minister of Ethnic Affairs Hon Pansy Wong. We are pleased to learn that the Minister is going to do something about the unemployment in terms of her portfolio and she is organising an ethnic forum. I sincerely hope that the proposed forum will not be just another hot air or a diminished version of the talkfest of the job summit last year.
Asian unemployment rate hit 9.2% last week. As my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad and I urged that the Minster must take immediate action to advocate within government to help jobless Asian people. Asian unemployment in New Zealand is now higher than the national average. What we need is a real plan, not empty rhetoric.
Finally, I totally agree to the Prime Minister’s statement that New Zealand’s future economic performance depends to a large extent on generating and using new ideas .Weta Digital, Icebreaker, Zespri and Fonterra he cited are all good examples. So research and innovation are important and the R&D tax credits, the Fast Forward scheme and tertiary scholarships in various forms are good policies and good investment.
As the NZ Manufacturers and Exporters Association Chief Executive John Walley said this afternoon that “jobs follow investment as night follows day”.
Sadly, for New Zealanders tomorrow is just another day. The Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament offered no bold plan or any plan at all.