Wong Pansy: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Wong Pansy: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13505] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am just so glad to follow the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove. He is the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of which I am also a member and to which ordinarily I thought Part 2 might have gone. 
We are very concerned because that select committee recently recommended to the House a taxation bill with over 2000 pages—and the House generously supported the passage of the bill which the Hon Dr Michael Cullen sponsored—but now the Hon Dr Michael Cullen together with the Hon Steve Maharey has suddenly dropped in this piece of legislation Part 2 of which makes taxation changes without it having been scrutinised. Shortly after the House passed the taxation bill we had a lot of amendments—and that is after the select committee spent 1 whole year deliberating on it. Today under urgency I really would like the Minister of Finance to stand up and give us an assurance that we will not return in a short time to debate further amendments because of some technical hitches or because some clauses do not have the right references to the taxation Act. For a Labour Government that says it is looking at simplifying taxation I thought that was a very strange way of going about it. 
The junior Labour whip said that if anybody does not understand Part 2 which relates to the calculation of family tax credits he or she should ring the 0800 line and get the answer. But our very diligent spokesperson on social welfare Katherine Rich has already spoken about the 0800 hotline last night. She is the future Hon Katherine Rich because she would be a good Minister. She understands that hard-working New Zealanders do not want to stay on a benefit. She would move them to work in a caring and constructive manner. Last night she rang the hotline and she has already denied the public relations spin put out by the Labour Government about a family with a 16-year-old child. That family in effect will not have relief of $170 because that child in 3 years’ time will no longer be eligible as a dependent child. So on day one the package was already wrong. 
How can this Committee and the public have confidence that Part 2 is absolutely error-free particularly if I share what I have read for example about the calculation of subpart KD credit? I am not too sure actually how many people understand this but it states that there are complications. Clause 29 has a few long sentences that tell people who want to know the amount they will be entitled to that it is $3744 if the child is under the age of 16 $4420 if the child is 16 years or older or a “weighted average of the amounts in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) that reflects the proportion of the period …” Well I am not too sure that any person can actually get through to the 0800 number as the junior Government whip is apparently already on the line checking on what I have just read to him. When he goes back to his electorate later on he will not be able to answer any questions.