Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am enormously pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and once again on behalf of my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to make my final contribution in this third reading of the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill. It has been a lot of rollicking fun. I was unaware that taxation legislation could be quite so exciting but seeing the passions that it has excited in members across the House I have found my eyes opened in a new way even though Grant Robertson talked—I thought he was going to break into the winter of our discontent" when he was making his contribution earlier.But being as this is an enabling piece of legislation for the Budget that the Government has delivered I am disappointed actually that it did not take the opportunity to make a few more sweeping changes to perhaps get rid of that waffly term "Working for Families" which does not really seem to mean much and probably call it "Family Incomes Package" instead because that does mean something. Actually this bill could have covered that.The independent earner tax credit has received a lot of attention in our discussions and deliberations around this bill and I think it is probably a bit of a red herring. When members around me have spoken about the demise of the independent earner tax credit and how that means that some people are really going to be gaining only $1—in fact it is 77c—in a practical sense that is not really going to be the case because as we have heard only about one in three people who are entitled to that particular rebate applies for it anyway. So what is more likely to happen is that the great majority of people who were entitled to that $10 a week but were not getting it will in fact get the $10.77 instead. So even for them that is likely in a practical sense to be a bonus.The accommodation supplement and the increases to that are probably the unspoken greater part of the benefit that this bill will bring to the people in most need including students who—for some reason that I have yet to have explained to me properly—are not entitled to the same kind of accommodation supplement as others. It is a different form of allowance for them. This bill has made some intelligent changes in terms of simplifying the tax system in terms of moving the thresholds and so forth and I wonder whether it could have been even better had students been brought into the same framework as others within this accommodation allowance.We have seen some suggestions that came through the Committee of the whole House stage and the abatement rate was something that was the subject of an amendment. It does need to be looked at because as it sits it is a disincentive for beneficiaries working. Obviously the numbers that were quoted we feel need to be costed in more depth because I do not believe that they are sustainable. So we have heard a lot about what the bill could have done and does not do.I understand that you are keeping quite a tight rein on where we go with this and that is understandable Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. I imagine that next week everything will be let loose and the Budget itself will be dissected—torn to pieces—by members on this side of the House in all quarters. So confining ourselves to this taxation bill I do have to correct Mr Bayly when he said that New Zealand First supported the Budget. We do not. We support this piece of tax legislation but of course we will be opposing the Budget. I imagine that goes for my Green colleagues as well. I imagine that Mr Bayly got that piece of information from Newshub.Newshub also reported that—despite the fact that some members around me have complained that the targeting of this bill has not been particularly accurate and that those most in need will miss out there are a lot of individual examples because of the complexity of people's individual situations. In fact Newshub also reported about a single mother by the name of Jade Temepara who earns $50000 and under this regime will be $83 a week better off. I am wondering how it is that Labour members particularly can stand up and say that they are going to deny a person in that situation that amount of an increase on the vague promise that after the election at some point at some time should they be in a position to do something better they might do something better whereas regardless of the outcome of the election these changes will kick in from April next year.Hon David Parker: After the election.RICHARD PROSSER: So well that is much the same—as my colleague says after the election. It is the same as we have heard with any bill. But here is a definitive change that will benefit people in that situation by a tangible amount and for that reason we are supporting this bill.Of course the reality—and it is a reality that most of us in this House do not need a tax break of another $1000 a year. We are all of course perfectly at liberty to donate it to charity as long as we do not then go claiming the rebate which would be a bit of double-dipping I think. So for people who feel some sort of moral opposition to taking a tax cut that they feel they do not need or want there is always the option of giving it away to somebody else even if you cannot give it back to the Crown.I do not want to labour the point. We have been through all the major issues that this bill throws up. We have had the arguments. At the end of it although we will as I say be opposing the National Government's Budget we do support this piece of tax legislation because the package that it aims to bring in is something that we believe will be of benefit to a great many people who very much need it. Thank you."