Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I do want to pick up where my colleague Chris Hipkins left off and talk about the repeal of the independent earner tax credit which is a critical element in this part of the bill. I want to start doing that by making sure that everybody understands what it is. It is very easy in these debates to be talking about a technical name like the independent earner tax credit and not giving people a full understanding of it. It is a $520 per annum maximum payment that goes to around half a million individuals earning between $24000 and $48000 a year if they do not receive a benefit Working for Families or superannuation. If you boil that down what that was really about—when we go back to 2009—was as my colleague Chris Hipkins has said how do we do something for single people? But it had quite a specific purpose. It was actually a continuation of the idea that there were costs associated with going to work. That is actually what it was about.It is a modest payment at 10 bucks a week. It is a modest payment but it recognised that you know it is a contribution to a bus fare or a contribution to some of your petrol costs. That is what it is saying. It is saying: You're in work and we want to make sure being in work has some additional value to you." That is where it came about. So the Government's logic today—and it is very confused. I mean we still have not really gotten to the bottom of this. We have got the Minister's speech that says that this independent earner tax credit is claimed by only about one third of eligible recipients; we have got the Family Incomes Package at a Glance document which says it is 32 percent; and then we have got the regulatory impact statement which says that it was claimed that around 80 percent of those eligible for the tax credit claim it—highly confused positioning here by the Government.Actually it was trying to downplay in the Budget speech the importance of this tax credit to a number of people. That downplaying carries on in the regulatory impact statement on page 23 when it does its analysis of what it calls "reprioritising" the independent earner tax credit. It has its objectives—is it going to improve work incentives? Yes. Is it going to improve incomes for those in financial hardship? The Government say yes and that is technically true. It is technically true by one dollar. It is technically true by one dollar because that is the impact that it has had by making other changes to tax rates in this part of the bill. That is $10; it gives $11—one dollar better off. I think this is actually not very accurate what is here. Marginal—one dollar wiped out under any circumstances whatsoever. I have not heard a justification from the Minister in the chair David Bennett or from any Government member today for why they are getting rid of this. Why are they getting rid of something that they brought in in 2009 that recognised the costs of going to work? Those things have not gone away. Those things are still there and yet that benefit has been taken away. So I would like a member of the Government to get up on their feet and tell us why this is consistent with the objectives that they have said they have got within the regulatory impact statement. If that is the justification that by one dollar they have improved those outcomes well I think that is pretty misleading. I do not think that is what most New Zealanders would believe was improving those outcomes. It is sending extremely confused signals to New Zealanders about what this National Government values. Does it value people being in work? Does it value giving a contribution to the costs of being in work? It seems from this that it does not. It seems from this that it would rather say: "No we're going to take that money off you. We're not going to give that as a recognition."I know a lot of New Zealanders single people who did not get any benefit from Working for Families and they have started to get pretty annoyed about that because they have costs too—not as big as for people who have children absolutely; but they have costs as well—and now the Government comes in and says "You know what? We're just going to get rid of it." A bit of shuffling money around and a claim that it is actually going to reduce hardship when in fact it is not. So it is time for the Government to get up and explain to New Zealanders why that part of this bill is a good idea because otherwise New Zealanders who are in work are going to feel cheated by this—and rightly so. Their costs have not changed yet the Government has decided that it is going to pull the plug on it. I have not heard a case made by any member of the National Government today on this. It is about time they got up and said why they defended this. Otherwise this is just an exercise in the Government saying "Trust us; we know what we're doing." and we know that is not possible."