As the last sitting day of parliament dawns, National’s tax policy is being assessed from all angles. From Voodoo costings and vote winning, it’s garnered praise as a political move but plenty of potential fishhooks have been identified, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

The last sitting day has arrived

Congratulations, we’ve made it to the last sitting day of parliament. A number of bills were referred to Select Committee yesterday and last night, including the bill to lower the voting age for local government elections. Jono Milne at Newsroom has a read on the fiscal implications of that as raised by councils. We’ll get into the assessment of National’s tax policy shortly but I just want to touch on the first reading of one bill last night that has been championed by Ashley Jones. Jones left her abusive marriage in January 2020 but found herself in separation limbo for two years before she could file the divorce papers. Jones has written about her experience for The Spinoff twice, documenting her advocacy and the way divorce laws allow abusive partners to continue to control those who leave. Jones spoke to The Post about the bill’s first reading, describing it as a “momentous occasion”. The adjournment debate will be held today and that will wrap up the 53rd New Zealand parliament.

‘Voodoo costings’ says finance minister

Onto the waterfall of news and commentary on National’s tax policy released yesterday. Newsroom’s Marc Daalder has a good topline explainer. National has proposed four new lines of revenue to cover the cost of its $14.6 b plan over four years. These include a 15% foreign buyer tax on the purchase of houses worth over $2m, ending the commercial building depreciation tax break, closing an online gambling loophole and immigration levies. Newsroom’s Matthew Scott has more on the immigration levies this morning. Finance minister Grant Robertson took particular issue with the $740m per year National cited as resulting from the foreign buyer tax, calling them “voodoo costings”. Robertson said “The plan relies on more and more foreign buyers coming into the New Zealand market every year, despite putting a tax on them. It also beggars belief that there are that number of homes available every year to be bought up by foreigners to fund National’s tax cuts.” Robertson was going for it yesterday, calling National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis, “Tricola Willis”, which I presume is a nod to trickle-down economics.

The fishhooks

RNZ’s Jane Patterson has a good rundown on the plan’s potential fish hooks. Patterson notes that “the headline figures National is offering to New Zealanders are enticing and would stack up for many families” but that if you dig a little deeper “there are some fishhooks that may take off the some of the gloss – namely, scrapping half price and free public transport and little extra direct support for low-income families.” In addition to the new revenue lines National is proposing, it is also looking to reprioritise funding from other initiatives. It will revoke funding for free public transport for children, while also effectively doubling the price of fares for youth under 25 if it wins the election. National will also redirect all future Emissions Trading Scheme proceeds to fund the tax bracket indexation at the heart of its policy, implementing what they call a “carbon dividend”. Marc Daalder has reactions from economists, who are somewhat sceptical of the plan.

How it might play for voters

Assessing it from a political point of view and its potential to garner votes, Business Desk’s Pattrick Smellie declared the plan “electorally competitive” (paywalled). The Herald’s Liam Dann labelled the policy a “vote winner” (paywalled). Newshub’s Jenna Lynch described it as “a masterclass in political marketing”, with a particular nod to the use of the fortnightly figures and smashing together of childcare credits to get to the billboard-friendly figure of $250 a fortnight. To end, reaction to the plan from people on the street. It’s a mixed bag, but “free money is free money” might nail how it’s being perceived by those who stand to benefit.