Brownlee Gerry; Parker DavidHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Along the lines of the question that's been just asked and answered by my colleague I've got a question that would ask: was there consideration given to altering tax rates so that that minimum figure that's in here the now $31096—or soon to be—would in fact be the after-tax earnings which could come from a person in work who was paying a lesser tax rate? It seems to me that's quite a simple way of doing things and of course would mean that the person did not have to go almost cap in hand to the Government to be topped up to their particular income level. It would mean that they could maintain their dignity. Now I've put an amendment on the Table to achieve that. I appreciate that the previous Chair said that it's likely at the time we come to vote to be knocked over but it is a reality that we're dealing with a system here that balances the lowest-income earners' take-home dollars—and in any event there is a tax factor in that because if they are working they will be paying tax. So my suggestion is and the amendment that I've moved is that the tax rate be moved to 10.5c between $0 and $17000 and 17.5c between $17000 and $48000. It would be interesting to know under current rates what does someone have to earn to actually be right on that cusp of $31096 and are we in fact seeing a situation where they drop below that amount because of the tax they're paying on their income and then have it rebated back to them? It would seem a simple thing to do would be to change the actual rates so that they don't have to go through this exercise of saying Look I'm sorry I need to top myself up; would you please give me some of my tax money back?" For that to occur of course it would be a simple matter of the Government recognising that this might be a better way to do things and at least considering it. I suspect though that despite the nature of this bill being fundamentally one that deals with a tax rate it will probably be knocked out—ruled as inappropriate. I think that's unfortunate. So it is to ask Minister Parker again: what was the consideration given—or was there consideration given—to moving a tax rate so that those people who are in work would only be paying tax that would get them back to that $31096? It seems to me that that would put them somewhere under current tax rates in the upper 40s or perhaps just mid to upper 40s. If their rate was lower then they may in fact keep a little bit more than the $31096 but administratively it's got to be a heck of a lot cheaper for the wider tax base.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Well the figures in clause 4 are after-tax figures which was—Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's right.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well no that's actually what—the member didn't say that at the start of his contribution. He might have mistakenly said it that way but I had the impression that that's not what he said. In respect of the other issue that the member raised as to whether we should change income tax rates well that's not part of this bill. But I would also note as the member did at the end that yes that would be complicated because it would have fiscal effects beyond this class of people who are being helped here because of course those income tax changes would flow through to every other taxpayer as well not just low-income people whose position is improved by this."