Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I've been listening to the debate and I want to thank the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for finally taking a call and answering a question because the purpose of the committee of the whole House is for us to ask questions and tease out the validity and the effects of this legislation. There have been a large number of questions asked and I want to move to a specific range of questions and I certainly hope the Hon Carmel Sepuloni will take the opportunity of answering those questions to my satisfaction.The first thing I want to do is to refer the Minister to the regulatory impact assessment page 12 and this is the point that was raised earlier by the Hon Dr Nick Smith which hasn't been answered by the Minister in the chair and I hope she will. This impact assessment says The introduction of Best Start and its abatement at 21% will increase disincentives to work for a group of families between $80000 and $95000." So I want the Minister to tell me: in the research that was done how many families sit in that bracket? I would have thought most low to middle income families two parents working hard will probably sit in the bracket of a gross household income coming into that house of $80000 to $95000. If that's so what this document is saying is that there will be a distinct disincentive for those people to work harder. How's that going to lift the productivity of this economy? I don't think it's going to.I note now we've got a relief Minister in the chair so my question to the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway is for him to explain to us how many families sit in the bracket noted in the regulatory impact assessment as people who will be worse off by the introduction of the Best Start payment. Not only do I want to know how many families are worse off I want to understand the rationale from this Government—from this Labour - Greens - "Mr 7 percent" New Zealand First Government—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I want to understand the rationale for why—Hon Scott Simpson: Actually 5 percent.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes. Anyway we're not into percent—the only thing I want to know is the percentage of taxpayers who sit in this bracket and will be worse off. The encouragement will be for them—as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said when they're offered a pay rise for additional responsibilities when they're asked to do further work their abatement rate will exceed 100 percent. That's an incredible position for any Government to put people into.The second point I want to tease out is clause 47 "Income Tax Act 2007 amended". I take it that that is the clause that takes away the tax package that was passed in May this year by the previous National-led Government—so confirmation of that. Then I want the Minister to tell me what discussions occurred between the coalition partners as they brought this legislation before Parliament because I take the opportunity of reminding the committee that only seven months ago New Zealand First and the Greens voted for a provision they're now apparently going to vote to take out. There doesn't seem any logic to me that two rather small parties in this Parliament—Hon Scott Simpson: Very small.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Very small and getting smaller might I add Scott Simpson—getting a lot lot smaller. I want to know why those two parties were supportive of a package to help 1.2 million New Zealanders yet have now come forward today to support a package that I calculate helps—perhaps if I believe Government figures—750000 New Zealanders but as I have identified in my earlier part of this contribution significantly disincentives probably the majority of low to middle income partners within a relationship working hard to better themselves for their own children. I'd be grateful if the Minister would answer the questions."