Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very grateful to be able to take another call. I must admit I sought it a little bit more vigorously this time because I was so pleased a few moments ago before the Hon Steven Joyce spoke to see that the Hon Ruth Dyson with all of her experience was seeking a call. Boy it's well past time for members opposite to start answering some of the questions—the very important questions—that members on this side of the House have been putting forward all morning. Frankly we have not been getting answers and I want to implore the current Minister who is in the chair Minister Lees-Galloway to start engaging in detail with the very significant questions that members on this side of the House have been putting forward.I was appalled when the Hon Ruth Dyson considered putting forward a closure motion because Part 1 of this bill is a very substantive measure that as the Hon Louise Upston articulated so eloquently a few moments ago is not open to any further public scrutiny—not going to select committee. This is the one opportunity that members of the public will have to hear the rationale behind some of the measures that have been put forward.I strongly echo the suggestion that's just been articulated by the Hon Steven Joyce. One of the real problems that you have with a package of this nature is that rushed legislation is often fraught with risk and in Part 1 I think it is clear that there are all sorts of anomalies and inconsistencies that are going to lead to chronic unfairness which will affect those who presumably were meant to benefit from Part 1. So I want to commend all of my colleagues behind me for the very intelligent range of amendments that we are putting forward that we are wishing to hear answers to and if the Government is not going to support them. Part 1 is a very significant measure and there's a whole range of things there.I'd like to just return to the independent earner tax credit because I asked the Minister of Finance a question earlier and he gave me a fairly glib answer but I have to say he didn't actually answer it in detail. I was making the point that none of my constituents—not one—had contacted me to express concern about the fact that the independent earner tax credit was being removed.Hon Members: Nor mine.Hon TIM MACINDOE: And my colleagues on this side are all echoing the same thing. So I'm frankly incredulous at the idea that Mr Robertson was contacted by a whole lot of people. He certainly didn't put a figure on it and I'm sure that there were very good reasons for that. The question remains: why would you reinstate the independent earner tax credit at $520 when at the same time you're taking away more than double that amount from a much greater number of people?The other thing of course is that we had legislated—and this bill will take it away—for everybody who would have been eligible for that tax reduction to get it. They wouldn't have had to go through a convoluted process. With the independent earner tax credit of course they have to go through quite a significant process and many of them have been totally unaware of it and have never done it.In the departmental disclosure statement we read the following: A person cannot claim the independent earner tax credit if they or their partner are eligible for a Best Start tax credit. This is achieved from defining a Best Start tax credit as a Working for Families tax credit in section MA 8 to the Income Tax Act 2007. The eligibility criteria for the independent earner tax credit already excludes people eligible for Working for Families tax credits." Even if I'd read that a little bit more slowly I doubt whether there are many people who are listening to this particular debate who would have understood what that all meant and how they could personally benefit from it. That is why it is incumbent on this particular Government at this time as they're rushing this bill under urgency to explain the rationale for something that is actually so inconsistent that it borders on being ludicrous.I want to commend as I say the colleagues on this side of the House for their many significant amendments. I will be strongly supporting Sarah Dowie with her amendment—Brett Hudson: What about mine?Hon TIM MACINDOE: —because a well-targeted—ha! And Mr Hudson's—and Mr Hudson's. I will be supporting all of my colleagues' amendments; it probably won't come as a great surprise to them to hear this. But I just wanted to mention one or two because a well-targeted credit can make really significant difference to those who are most in need in our country and in that I presume all members of this committee are united. What we really want to do and what we were doing through our own Budget in May of this year is try once again to focus assistance on those who most need it. I would have thought that the current Government who claim that they represent many of those people would have been only too pleased to support us in that. But instead no—we've had no indication yet (a) of how they're going to respond to most of our amendments or (b) whether they even understand the rationale behind them.I make the point: I am so proud to be part of a really cohesive Opposition that is putting forward substantive amendments to this bill. This is not frivolous opposition; this is serious wide-ranging debate on a number of measures that will make a very real difference in the lives of those people who this bill is supposedly meant to impact.Why—why—are we not hearing any response at all? Surely this is the opportunity this is the moment. These are the people who have for the last five weeks wasted parliamentary time on a whole range of measures that had unanimous support in the House to the point where they filibustered and voted down their own closure motions and yet now when they have an opportunity to stand up and debate something of substance—something that actually makes a real difference to those New Zealanders—they are utterly silent. It's a disgrace. It is a disgrace it really is and I think that the members opposite should be hanging their heads in shame. I really want at least one of them to stand up now and answer one significant point that has been made."