Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to cover a number of clauses in Part 1—clause 6 for instance which is to make an amendment to increase the family tax credit and to align the family tax credit rates for younger children with the higher older children rates." Of course one of the very important measures in this package is supporting New Zealand families by increasing the Working for Families allowances for families for children—in fact supporting families who are larger who have more children. So we will see the changes in this package—I think it is a little over $9 a week for the family with one child. The second child might be around an additional $17 a week and with larger families that can be up to $27 for those subsequent children—each of those subsequent children—per week.What we are doing here is also seeking to—there used to be a distinction between the ages of the children so for a younger child the family would receive less of a payment for them than for an older child. One of the things we have determined in terms of simplicity but also to respect that there are pressures for families across the range of their children whether they are younger or older is that it would be a much better regime simply to have fewer rates. That clause in particular will help to bring that about.There are other clauses for instance in this part that make consequential amendments resulting from the decision to change the tax thresholds or bands for the taxation rates that apply. Particularly for instance clauses 11 12 15 16 and 17 make consequential amendments because we have taken a very clear measure to say we can best help low and middle income earners by adjusting the thresholds that affect every dollar that they earn. In fact I will also bring the Committee's attention to clause 18 in a few moments because that actually shows even more that this is a set of measures that is targeting low income earners and not the wealthy as some members opposite have chosen to define anyone who earns $52000 or more.So the tax thresholds are going to see at least at a minimum an extra $11 a week in the hand of low income earners and an extra $20 a week in the hands of people earning $52000 or more. Members opposite particularly the leaders yesterday made a comment that because at $52000 you get $20 a week it is simply subsidising the wealthy. Dr Cullen—Michael Cullen Sir Michael Cullen—made a change in the year 2000 that income rates of $60000 or more would have a higher tax rate. He called people in those rates rich. He called them something a bit stronger than that but he called them rich. Now $60000 today would be the equivalent of $86600—in fact more—but yesterday the leaders of the Labour Party and the Green Party redefined what they considered rich what they called wealthy. They dragged it down from what would be in effect $86000 to $52000.They are saying that if you earn $52000 a year you are wealthy. These people are on more than $200000 a year themselves. Even backbenchers when you take their pay their entitlements their expense allowances and all the things they get they get more than $200000 value a year and they have the absolute gall to say to someone who is earning $52000 a year: "You're rich." That is absolutely disgraceful.Clause 18 which I will finish on in this call makes some consequential amendments in respect of the abatement rates that we are changing for Working for Families. What that means is that if you are earning a bit more the abatement rate for Working for Families is going to kick in sooner. But as Max Rashbrooke pointed out yesterday—I saw this on Twitter and Max is no fan of this National Party or the National-led Government but he pointed this out on Twitter yesterday because he was going through the detail of this package very quickly on its release. He actually pointed to that specific change: the change about abatements for Working for Families. Max said that shows that the actual target for this Budget is lower income earners. That is a change he absolutely supports because he knows the effect that it has is to make sure that more assistance goes to and is more targeted toward those lower income earners.So I am looking forward to the debate here in the Committee stage because this is an extremely good set of measures and it is actually very very well targeted. It is the sort thing—it shows a Government that understands and cares about the pressures on Kiwis particularly lower income earners and middle income earners and the pressure on their families and it shows that we back them. We back them to succeed and we back them with the support of Government. I look forward to more calls."