Copeland Gordon: General Debate 
Copeland Gordon: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6508] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Last Friday the Families Commission announced the results of a study of mothers undertaken by Massey University on parenting and participation in the paid workforce. The study gave particular attention to the cultural and attitudinal norms of society around the important decision made by mothers about whether to provide at-home care for their children—particularly preschoolers—to re-enter the paid workforce or to have some combination of both options. 
The conclusions of that study are noteworthy. Firstly the women involved think that society no longer feels that a good mother necessarily stays at home full time. Secondly they believe that society today expects them to re-enter paid work part time and does not value stay-at-home mothers. The women feel that more should be done by the Government so that mothers have the choice to stay at home and care for their children rather than be offered assistance with childcare only. Most women also felt that the first year was an important time for mothers rather than for fathers to be with their children for bonding and breastfeeding. United Future shares those concerns. At the moment Government assistance weighs the scales in favour of workforce participation through assistance with childcare but does nothing at all for stay-at-home mums. 
The Prime Minister laid out her vision for such mothers a couple of years back. She lamented their relatively low levels of participation in the paid workforce whilst refusing to acknowledge in response to questions from United Future that mothers who stay at home with their children are also making a much valued contribution to New Zealand society and its economy. She talked about choice which is something that all of us value but she put forward no policy for stay-at-home mums. 
United Future has a very different vision. We say that full-time childcare by mothers should be both valued by society and tangibly recognised through Government policy. That is why we are passionate about income splitting for the 336000 couples who are raising children. Income splitting would reduce income tax for many couples and boost their net household income. In addition though that policy would send a positive message to those mothers who freely choose to stay at home with their children that our culture does value their unique and vitally important role in training and raising the next generation of Kiwis. 
Income splitting addresses the unique position of mothers holistically and it turns the focus directly on to the family unit and its need for an adequate income. In many cases it supplements Working for Families income support and reduces the need for such support through income tax reductions—three words that are now more and more associated with United Future. That is why United Future has included income splitting in its confidence and supply agreement. That is why the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne will be issuing a discussion document on income splitting and all couples with children can take some encouragement from that.  
 In this House we have consistently argued for a threshold adjustment to tax brackets for several years now. We have consistently advocated for and are acting on a reduction in business taxation and I am sure we will see both of those things delivered in next year’s Budget. We also continue to stay on the case of income splitting for couples who are raising children because it is fair it is just and it recognises the tremendous and irreplaceable contribution that mothers make to the training and the welfare of our children—something that is not only our future but already to a very significant degree our present. Thank you.