Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I want to take a moment to address the tabled amendments placed by the Greens' Metiria Turei and Marama Davidson but before I do that that was a very passionate speech from Mr Parker and I want to make a comment on that because in actual fact Mr Parker's view and that of the Government are both right. They are both correct in that the accommodation supplement is a subsidy for landlords but it does go into the pocket of the tenant who is having trouble paying their rent. It is not as Mr Parker quite rightly points out a good way of managing the fact that housing is prohibitively expensive. It does not address the fact that too many landlords do have this whip hand over the rental market that they are able to buy houses when other people are not. There is this under-competitive overpriced housing and rental market in this country and a lot of that is to do with offshore owners and so forth. So Mr Parker is quite correct in saying that this increase in the accommodation supplement from $800 million and something to $1.5 billion does go into the pocket of the landlords.However the reality for the people on the ground who are renting is that if you are faced with a hundred-dollar hole in your weekly budget that is currently going on rent which has to be filled from somewhere be that the power bill the grocery bill or new shoes for the kids or whatever then that is a real hundred-dollar hole and if this increase in the supplement can help fill that hole then that is money in the pocket of again the people who need it most. I am not pretending that it is anything more than paint over the rust as I commented yesterday but it does address the issue in the short term as it needs to be addressed.Turning to the amendment tabled by Marama Davidson first the amendment changing the date of commencement for the calculation of the family tax credit from 1 April 2018 to 1 July 2017—New Zealand First will be supporting this amendment. We do think that it is a way of showing whether or not the Government is prepared to put our money where its mouth is because effectively being that far on the other side of the coming election this entire bill and the Budget measures that depend on it are almost virtual. They are almost pretend. Everything could change come September and certainly come April everything could be very different. So I would ask the Government to look at this proposal quite seriously. If it is genuine about the intent of what it claims that this Family Incomes Package and the related taxation bill to do with it are meant to achieve then I do not see that it will have any problem in changing that commencement date. So we will be supporting that one.Turning to the amendment in the name of Metiria Turei—there are two parts to this obviously. Changing the family income threshold above which the tax credit is abated by increasing it from $36500 to $50000—this we do think is a good move and will put even more money in the pockets of those who are most in need of it. However when we turn to the second part—decreasing that abatement rate from the current 22.5c in the dollar to 5c—we do have some concerns about that. I am wondering whether Metiria Turei or somebody else from the Greens would mind rising and taking a call to explain perhaps some of the costings behind this suggestion because it seems to us that it is likely to be prohibitive. I do not imagine the Government will support it on that basis. It is certainly an area that could be improved and perhaps a lesser movement might be acceptable to the Government. I imagine that Mr Joyce has done his sums and there is not space for a movement of this type.I understand that this again could be something that could be seen if the Government were to support it as addressing concerns that have been raised particularly by members from the Labour quadrant that in their view too many of these proposed changes are aimed at higher earners as opposed to lower earners. It might be a way of offsetting that but I think going from the one figure of 22.5c to 5c probably alters it too much. There are obviously ways in which the inequality as it has been stated can be addressed. This may be one way of doing it but I do not believe that proportionately it is the correct thing to do and for that reason because these two measures are in the same amendment we find ourselves unable to support that one. So we will be supporting Marama Davidson's amendment but we will not be supporting Metiria Turei's amendment.