2. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
How many New Zealand families will receive targeted tax relief through the Working for Families package?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
I am pleased to inform the House that new Treasury estimates show that 359,000 families with dependent children will be eligible for family assistance when the Working for Families package is fully rolled out. That is three out of every four New Zealand families with dependent children.
What difference has the Working for Families tax relief made, in comparison with Australia’s tax situation?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
The OECD confirms that for an average person, the overall tax take—taking into account all Government contributions, transfers, and tax credits—as a proportion of gross earnings, is already lower in New Zealand than in Australia. For a family with children, the Working for Families package has made a significant difference. For a single-earner family with two children on average earnings, Working for Families has taken New Zealand from having the eighth lowest OECD tax rate to having the fifth lowest, which puts us one place ahead of Australia. The 1 April extension of Working for Families will further reduce the overall tax rate. If the rankings of other countries remain unchanged, New Zealand will be ranked lowest in the OECD.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I have seen reports that National would borrow billions of dollars and cut health and education spending to deliver misguided, badly targeted tax cuts. What I have not—[ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERWould the member sit down, please. It is impossible to hear the Minister’s answer. I remind members that interjection are permitted; barracking is not.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I have seen reports that National would borrow billions of dollars and cut health and education spending to deliver misguided tax cuts. What I have not seen is a serious alternative approach to tax relief that tells New Zealand families whether they would lose the tax relief they currently get under Working for Families, to pay for tax cuts for high-income earners.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are very strict with members on this side of the House in terms of whether questions are directed to the correct Minister. We know that Labour is desperate to rejig its Working for Families package as a tax initiative rather than a welfare initiative. But I would like you to clarify that the Minister’s entire answer both to this question and the previous question should rightly be in the hands of the Minister of Revenue—the “Minister of Tax”. I simply ask you to enforce the Standing Order that relates to ministerial responsibility.
I thank the member. I, of course, was unable to hear much of the last answer. Would the Minister please repeat it.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I have seen reports that National would borrow billions of dollars and cut health and education spending to deliver misguided and badly targeted tax cuts. What I have not seen is a serious alternative approach to targeted tax relief that tells New Zealand families whether they would lose the tax relief they currently get under Working for Families, to pay for tax cuts for higher-income earners. I invite the National Party to come clean on what its real policy for working families is.
What reports has the Minister seen on the effect of Working for Families tax relief on working New Zealanders?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I have seen a report in the Marlborough Express of 31 March about a one-income family, a couple with three children, who returned from Australia to bring up their children. Ms Gee said: “For us [Working for Families is] fantastic, because we’ve been really struggling on one income. … For the children, it means they will be able to do sports and dancing, things that they love but are quite expensive. We can also use it to buy all the extra warm clothes we need here!”.