Menéndez March Ricardo; Watts SimonRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I wanted to follow up with some questions on the distributional analysis of options that was presented in the regulatory impact statement. I take his point that not all of the advice has been published but in the interest of transparency and the commitment—in the coalition agreement that he's got with the other parties—on using best available data and evidence—Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wanted to remind the member if he could turn the mic because it's a bit hard to hear—RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I need to speak more closely to it. In the interests of transparency and best data and evidence I did want to elicit some answers in relation to the advice on the distributional impact analysis options. Grant McCallum: It was better when we couldn't hear you.James Meager: Too close now.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It's interesting that the members to my left—the Government members—have taken basically pretty shallow contributions throughout this debate and yet find time to mock their own bill. Francisco Hernandez: Twelve second speeches.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah—12 second speeches. Anyway—going back to distributional analysis of options. The analysis that's been presented in the regulatory impact statement contains very little analysis in relationship to gender and ethnicity. There's one paragraph that talks about relatively fewer Māori Pacific Peoples and women benefit from the package." But if he wouldn't mind expanding I did want to get a sense——when the advice says that "Compared to the overall population relatively fewer Māori Pacific Peoples and women benefit from the package." can he explain to us whether he actually had any concerns when that evidence was presented to him. Again those are the questions that we would have expanded on in the select committee stage.The advice on distributional analysis does show that people receiving main benefits who have relatively low incomes do not gain from the package as benefit rates are set in after-tax terms. So I did want to get a sense of whether the Minister had—because he's just told us that there wasn't a child impact assessment being done. I am interested—from again a child poverty reduction element which is different from a child impact assessment and the fact that on this bill and this part of the bill around the income tax threshold changes it's been identified that Māori women and Pasifika people benefit less and that beneficiaries will benefit disproportionately less—in why he did not seek a child impact assessment or why he hasn't presented to us the impact that this will have on children particularly those in poverty. I think it's not good enough. We're a party that has been criticised—actually not just us; the Opposition has been criticised—for just being shallow in our slogans. I think the contributions so far have been full of slogans and very little substantiation to actually what the intent here is around lifting those in the most severe poverty.The second question I had around the distributional analysis of options was around whether he thinks that there will be any impact on employment levels as a result of this. I think that was very briefly mentioned but again if the Government's intent is to get people off the benefit and into work and we know that the toxic stress of survival plays a huge part in people being able to get into work I am curious as to whether he sought any advice from the Ministry of Social Development for example or anyone else—those stakeholders—around impacts on employment levels as a result of beneficiaries not being as lifted through these tax relief measures. This does seem to then contradict the broader intent and the strategic goals of this Government. To recap I'm interested in whether he received advice on the number of Māori Pacific people and women who would benefit less—the specific number—and then I'm also interested in understanding the impacts of unemployment figures as the result of this bill and whether he received any advice in relation to this.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I guess one of the outcomes of providing tax relief to low and middle income New Zealanders is that surprisingly when you reduce their taxes they have more money in their back pocket. So the simple calculation in regards to the provision of tax relief to low and middle income New Zealanders as has been delivered through this Budget and through this bill goes right to the heart of what the member's points and questions are. They are going to end up with more money in their back pocket than what they have under the status quo. So while the distributional impact on child poverty hasn't specifically been undertaken it doesn't take one too much to do a correlation to say that if we're putting more money into the back pockets of those two groups—which by no doubt have a higher degree of exposure and impact in regards to the areas and challenges that the member has articulated—then they're going to see benefit. The other aspect that is asked is whether the Government has considered any difference in the way in which we apply tax rates based on gender or one's ethnic background. Well surprisingly no. The tax cuts that we are providing are for all New Zealanders who are on low and medium income bands within the tax scheme. We're not differentiating based on anything other than what their income is. What we're doing through this is providing tax benefit and reducing the tax that those individuals pay so they have a little bit more in their back pocket to spend on the things that they need in their life. It's quite simple."