Adams Amy: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14315] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am very pleased to have the chance to take a call on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill. Let me say at the outset that the concept that the bill puts before the House is one that I have both a great deal of interest in and a number of significant concerns about. Equally it is fair to say it is an issue that generates a lot of public debate and interest. When the Minister’s press release about the upcoming introduction of the bill came out I was involved in a function all day and had missed the announcement. The thing that brought it to my attention was the steady stream of people who came up to me throughout the rest of the day and the next morning wanting to talk to me about it and express their views which were pretty passionately held on both sides of the debate. Clearly it is an issue that will generate a lot of interest. 
I certainly can see a lot of merit in having a select committee look at the bill and then put the issues out there and debate them. As the House knows it is part of National’s supply and confidence agreement with United Future that National will work with United Future in respect of this bill and certainly support it going to the select committee. I am very pleased to do that because I think it is an important issue. The matters that it traverses and touches upon are fundamental as Minister Dunne said in his opening remarks. There can be nothing more important in our society than the raising of children and the supporting of families in doing that. 
I will run through the two halves of the debate as I see them and the issues that impact on me. Certainly on the positive side it appeals to me that we would be able to encourage families to set up their childcare arrangements in a way that best suits them. I have often been a believer that there is no one-size-fits-all arrangement when it comes to how parents should raise their children and how parents should work. If one parent wishes to stay home full-time to raise the children and it was simply financial matters that were not allowing that to occur then obviously it would be wonderful to be able to give parents that opportunity. I know that having two parents going out to work for 20 hours a week each rather than having one parent working for 40 hours would certainly be financially more valuable to the family. But that has a cost too in consistency and in time spent together. There is nothing more difficult than raising children particularly in the very early stages of parenting. Frankly I know when I went back to work as a young parent it was pretty much for a rest. Working as a lawyer was considerably easier than being at home with a young child. But if this is the best thing we can do for our families and our children then every member of this House would want to support families in doing that as far as they can do so. 
There are some really strong drivers within me that want to support the concepts in the bill. But on the flip side I do have concerns and they have been predominantly picked up by the Attorney-General in his report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act about the position that the bill leaves sole parents in. The Attorney-General’s report talks about the bill being discriminatory against sole parents. The negative comments that I have heard from people in my community are largely around that issue. Does the bill unfairly place sole parents at a disadvantage to married parents? Will parents be encouraged to stay together in a marriage they might not have stayed in but for that ability? Who knows? These are issues that we need to look at. The fact that the Attorney-General was so concerned that he issued a section 7 report is not something we can take lightly. 
The other factor that we need to be very mindful of and the previous speaker David Cunliffe touched on it is that we are all very aware of the difficult and strained financial times we are in and a proposal such as this does have a significant fiscal impact. In a perfect world we would never have to worry about these things but the fact is that we do. We have to be very mindful as a Government to consider the fiscal costs of the proposal. 
As I said in my introductory comments I have a lot of interest in the proposal I see merit in it but equally I have a number of significant concerns. For my part as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which the House is so moved to send the bill to should it pass its first reading I will be incredibly interested to go through the process of public submission and debate on the proposals and I will do so very much with an open mind. For that reason I am very pleased to support the bill at its first reading.