Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19360] 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How have New Zealand families already benefited from the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 More than 88000 New Zealand households already have increased entitlements as a result of the Working for Families changes that came into effect on 1 October 2004. Over 30000 families have had increased entitlements to childcare assistance and out-of-school care and recreation due to increased subsidy rates and widened eligibility. Around 60000 have had increased entitlements to accommodation supplements as a result of a more generous abatement provision brought in on 1 October. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How much do individual families benefit from those changes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Let me give two examples. A two-income couple with two children that earns a little over $37000 gross a year before tax and pays $120 a week in rent and $69 in childcare costs will be $42 a week better off. A sole parent with a young child who works 30 hours a week earning $11 an hour in the hand while on the domestic purposes benefit and pays $225 in rent and $115 or so in childcare costs will be $56 better off. By April 2007 they will be $163 a week and $147 a week better off respectively. 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that the Inland Revenue Department is woefully underprepared for what could be a huge number of recipients of Working for Families who will end up underestimating their income and becoming debtors of the Inland Revenue Department just like the 34747 who found themselves in that position in 2004 when a fraction of the number of New Zealanders was exposed to that package; and was he shocked to learn as I was that 747 of those New Zealanders ended up owing $5000 or more and 22 owed $10000 or more last year alone? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister concerned at the front page report in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
 that desperate workers are visiting food banks for the first time and what is his response to a call from social service agencies the Council of Trade Unions and the Green Party to bring forward those parts of the Working for Families package that the Government has delayed until 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am always concerned when I read headlines of that nature. That is what the Working for Families package of course is for. This year around $600 million will be part of that package. Were we to move forward more parts of that package the pressure on things such as inflation would be obvious. The $600 million this year is about what I think we can give. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: Will the Minister confirm aside from rent relief how much senior citizens would benefit from the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member knows this package is targeted at households with families in them. If superannuitants have families in their households they will benefit directly from the package. 
Judy Turner 
: Why are families who provide foster care for extended family members such as grandparents caring for their grandchildren paid $30 less a week under the Working for Families package than Child Youth and Family Services foster carers who do an equivalent job and how does he reconcile that with the Government’s stated intention in the care and protection blueprint that “Wherever possible relationships between children young people and their family and whanau should be preserved and strengthened.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will know I am sure that the reason behind this is that when people have children placed into their care by Child Youth and Family Services they are in fact acting on the instructions of the State in looking after those children whereas most of the children who are being raised by grandparents or by any other relative in the same situation are not in that position. A major debate is going on right now on whether those two payments ought to be equalised. The member knows that. It is under active consideration. 
John Key 
: If the Minister stands by the answer he gave me before when he said that he was not concerned about the Inland Revenue Department and he did not think it was woefully unprepared will he stand up in the House now and tell New Zealanders who underestimate their income that they will not have to pay the debts they owe; and will he also tell the people of New Zealand why New Zealanders will be so much better at estimating their income than Australians under the same scheme 96 percent of whom could not get it right? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr Key is asking me to make comparisons between New Zealanders and Australians which I shall resist doing on this occasion. All I can say to Mr Key is that he knows—we have said it before—that both I and the Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue Department think the department has been well prepared for this and is in good shape to handle the job that it has had put in front of it. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister to stand up and give to the House and to the people of New Zealand the assurance that if he is wrong and if thousands and thousands of New Zealanders end up owing a lot of money to the Inland Revenue Department his Government will write it off. It is all very well for the Minister to stand up and smile about it and not care about it but the facts of life are that the answers given to me by the Minister of Finance were that the Inland Revenue Department is woefully underprepared. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Apart from the last bit being absolutely untrue and completely incorrect the Minister for Social Development and Employment has no responsibility for making promises about refunds from an Inland Revenue Department scheme. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Inland Revenue Department will use a system for contacting New Zealanders who underestimate their income that will involve the department sending two computer-generated letters and that the computer-generated letters will be months and months apart so there will be plenty of time to run up those debts; and can he tell the House why the Inland Revenue Department in New Zealand did not contact the inland revenue department in Australia to work out why it had so many problems with its system when it is using exactly the same system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am flattered that Mr Key thinks I am responsible for the Inland Revenue Department when the other Minister is actually in the House. But I can say to the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This Minister is responsible for nothing—always ducking for cover. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr Smith is inviting something that he never wants to hear so if I were him I would be quiet— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What sort of threat is that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I said that I would be quiet if I were him; he is always inviting things across the House that he does not want to hear so he should be quiet. What I can say to Mr Key on behalf of the Minister whom I have worked with closely on the implementation of this programme is that the Inland Revenue Department has a good tracking method in relation to ensuring that people understand what is happening so it is confident it can handle this issue.