Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much Mr Chair for giving me another chance to speak to Part 1 of the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill. In an earlier contribution I did start talking about clause 5 but after a gentle breeze of barracking from the other side of the Chamber I was distracted and went on to other issues and was suitably sat down. So I want to get back to clause 5 which in essence gets rid of the independent earner tax credit (IETC). I want to ask a question of the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson around this clause as to the words spoken by the finance Minister in his speech.I want to know why the Minister of Finance said in his speech yesterday afternoon that the independent earner tax credit is claimed by only about one-third of eligible recipients during the tax year. I am not saying that that is factually incorrect but the Minister of Finance chose expressly to use those words instead of the wider fact that is revealed in the regulatory impact statement from our officials around the independent earner tax credit. It says that it is estimated that around 80 percent of those eligible for the tax credit actually claim it and of those 60 percent claim it after the end of the tax year. The words that the Minister of Finance chose to use yesterday—and I am trying to answer the Minister's question for him—were chosen specifically I think to minimise the impact of removing the tax credit which is effectively done in clause 5.I think we have to ask the question: why did the Minister of Finance try to minimise the effect of that? When you put that into the context of some of the other tax changes that were made in the Budget—as has been mentioned a couple of times already in this debate—someone who is single and on the minimum wage will get about $11 of tax benefit from the Budget. But in essence because clause 5 has been put in by the Government the benefit of the $10 a week that that person would have got under the independent earner tax credit has gone.We may be talking about the independent earner tax credit here in the Committee but those who are listening or watching at home might not know a lot about it. So helpfully the officials have put a little synopsis together on page 3 of the regulatory impact statement. The IETC is available to those individuals who earn between $24000 and $48000 as an incentive to work. So I think that would put that range around about low to middle income. The Minister of Finance chose to minimise the real benefit of the IETC because the removal of it in clause 5 really does hit low to middle income earners. So my question to the Minister in the chair at the moment is—and we have had a bit of confusion as to what the right figure is; the Minister of Finance said 32 the officials say 80—why did the Minister of Finance choose to say those words yesterday and try to minimise the effect of removing the independent earner tax credit?Someone at home who is getting the independent earner tax credit might have thought that the $11 that they get through the tax cuts is $11 on top of what they are getting through the independent earner tax credit therefore thinking: Hey that's not so bad." But the actual effect of the entirety of clause 5 and whatever else is included in this Budget is that that person is actually only $1 better off. I think I may have done a favour for the Minister in the chair as to why the Minister of Finance yesterday used the words that only 32 percent of eligible people who could get the IETC claim it in that year. It is clear from the regulatory impact statement that 60 percent of people who are eligible actually claim after the tax year. So it is actually something that is used quite extensively by people with low to middle incomes—that bracket between $24000 and $48000 a year.The officials tell us that the cost of it is $220 million per annum. So when the Minister says "Oh it's only a third of people who claim it." he is trying to say that it is really not a significant issue for low to middle income earners. But at a cost of $220 million a year—a benefit of $220 million a year to those people—removing the independent earner tax credit—"