11. STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Revenue
Who will benefit most from the tax credit described in the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill as “intended to give couples greater freedom to work fewer hours or more flexible hours in order to care for children”?
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) Link to this
The couples who will benefit most are precisely those—couples who want greater freedom to work fewer or more flexible hours in order to care for their children. This legislation, and income-sharing generally, are about giving people more choices about the way in which they live their lives and determine their family affairs. I cannot for the life of me understand why the member opposite is so opposed to that.
How is it fair that, under a bill that would cost all taxpayers almost $500 million per year, a family with a single earner on a medium wage gets $19 a week while a family with a single earner on $140,000 gets $175 a week?
What the member overlooks, conveniently I suspect, is that the family in the first of his examples will also be benefiting considerably from the Working for Families package, which costs considerably more than income sharing would.
Does he agree with Treasury, the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Labour, Bill English, and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, all of which point out serious flaws in the policy, with Treasury advising against the introduction of the tax credit because it costs too much and because most of the credits will go to those on the highest incomes?
No, I do not accept that advice. I am surprised the member does, given his party’s attitude to Treasury generally. As I said in my primary response, this is about giving parents some choices and some options. I would have thought that the party opposite would be all in favour of choice and option—or, in fact, has nanny State become too strong for it?
Sue MoroneyIs he aware, then, that both of the couples he gives as examples in the commentary on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill would be better off if paid parental leave were to be extended to 6 months, at much less cost to the country; will he therefore support the introduction of the bill I have drafted to achieve 6 months’ paid parental leave?
I think I have already separately answered that question in correspondence with the member. I draw to the attention of the House some comments from members of the public in response to this legislation. Let me quote from a couple of messages—
Mr SPEAKERNo, the Minister was not asked what members of the public thought about the proposal. The Minister was asked specifically about the relationship between his legislation and extending paid parental leave. The Minister did say that he had discussed that in correspondence with the member, but the House is none the wiser.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member approached me in my non-ministerial capacity about her member’s bill, which is yet to be drawn in the ballot as I understand it. I indicated that from a United Future point of view we do support the extension of paid parental leave, but that is not part of my ministerial responsibility in dealing with this question—hence my reference at the outset.
No, the Minister was asked for a comparison. He may not have the information, because the paid parental leave issue is not his responsibility. To clear confusion, I invite Sue Moroney to repeat her question.
Is he aware that both of the couples he gives as examples in the commentary on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill would be better off if paid parental leave were to be extended to 6 months, at much less cost to the country; will he therefore support the introduction of the bill I have drafted to achieve 6 months’ paid parental leave?
I repeat the answer that I gave beforehand: in respect of the member’s bill, which is yet to be drawn from the ballot, I have given a response, but that response was not given in my ministerial capacity. With regard to the first part of the question, I think it is worth drawing to the attention of the House the responses of some real people who have commented since my legislation was drafted, because they go to the heart of the point that the member was making. Let me quote from just one such correspondent, in the time I have available to me. He says as follows: “My wife is a respected and skilled professional in her own right and she also holds a master’s degree. We made a choice that she would stay at home and take care of our children while I continued to work. It was a large financial impact to us, but in researching the effects of her returning to work compared to the negative effects it was the right choice.” They are the sorts of families that will benefit from the income-sharing package.