Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I welcome the critique from Labour of the tax package that is in this bill because I think that is quite right. It is a regressive tax package; most of the benefits go to those who are at the higher incomes rather than at the lower. It does make positive changes this bill to those who are on those lowest tax brackets but it is true that most of the benefit goes elsewhere. The reason why the Green Party is prepared to support this bill—and not the whole Budget I might add; just this bill—is that those tax thresholds at the very bottom do move and we think that is the right thing to do and particularly because the family tax credit changes are in this part as well.From our point of view there have been a number of gaps in the Working for Families approach that have tended to discriminate against those who are beneficiaries for example. It has been incredibly complicated and difficult for families to navigate and it creates far too many gaps for families to fall through especially as their circumstances change. For many families in insecure work and on those low incomes their circumstances are constantly changing so they are in constant flux around what kind of income they are going to get when they are going to get it and what it means. So it is very difficult for those at the bottom end to navigate this.There is a small step forward in this bill that we are prepared to support and that is a better aligning of the payments for the eldest dependent child and for subsequent children in the family tax credit. The family tax credit is also one of the few parts of Working for Families that is accessible for those on benefits on superannuation. A great deal of Working for Families as originally designed leaves out beneficiary families and that is completely unacceptable because those families are the ones who need the most support. So we are prepared to accept that small—small in terms of this legislation but significant in terms of those families—shift in the family tax credit and the thresholds.I do just want to note that this is a Government that is very good at sleight of hand. In this bill—Chris Bishop: Oh!METIRIA TUREI: Well you can see it right here; it is in black and white. In clause 6 in Part 1 which we are discussing there is the provision for a slight increase in the family tax credit. In clause 7 there is the taking away of what has just been delivered more or less for a large number of families because in clause 7 we have the changes in the abatement rates. So National is increasing the amount of money for the family tax credit—good. On the other hand those who are earning $35000 or more are going to lose more of that in abatement. So the abatement threshold—income threshold—is coming down so more families will lose money and the abatement rate is going up which means that more families are going to lose more money. That is after—immediately after—increasing the family tax credit.This is a Government that has no capacity to deliver to families in a real way. It will do a small thing over here and it will reap it back over here wherever it can. There is no doubt that most families will still benefit to some extent but why is it that National cannot bring itself to make sure that every family is going to do well? Why is it that National is so obsessed with this intense targeting that it is happy that families will fall through the cracks? Because that is what these two provisions—clause 6 and clause 7—do. National has been doing this now for the last 8 years and so this is why the value of Working for Families has been in constant decline. It is why we are seeing cuts in the health services and cuts in education being paraded as increases—because of this intellectual pretzelism" that National suffers from in being unable to take a family and their needs and deliver for that family.So we really need to just be really clear about this because I would like some answers from the Minister in the chair Tim Macindoe—should he be so inclined to stand up and respond—as to why it was that it was so necessary to change the abatement rates for this. I have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—[Bell rung] Thank you Mr Chair. I would like the Minister to stand up and explain why it was necessary that National should give with one hand and take with the other because that is what this abatement change does. I have a Supplementary Order Paper—it is either on the Table now or will be soon—that changes this provision increases the threshold to $50000 and decreases the abatement rate to 5c. It is a means to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to have financial systems in place that take money from families when they need it the most. An income of $35000 a year is a meagre income for a family—it is meagre. It is around about the minimum wage. It is absolutely—it is appalling.So why would any Government choose to attack the potential for stable income the potential for certainty for those who are on the lowest incomes in this country? Only National could do that. I have watched a Labour Government in my last 15 years—I have seen most of a Labour Government; I have seen all of a National Government in my 15 years and it is really clear to me that National has been incapable of being generous enough with the country's resources to make sure that families have got what they need and this is a classic example in this bill because in clause 6 it gives and in clause 7 it takes away.So what is the justification for it? Because we have heard also for example in respect of the accommodation supplement—which has been one of the arguments for some of the changes in this bill—that there are going to be increases in the accommodation supplement. We also know that as a result of that $100 million over 4 years will be taken from families who will get that increase because they will lose access to other support.So why—why in this bill give with one hand and take with the other? Why when it comes to accommodation supplement give with one hand and take with the other? When National and all of us here in this Chamber and the whole country know that families are suffering—beneficiary families working families middle-class families are all suffering from increased housing costs increased cost of living difficulty paying their power bill over this coming winter difficulty getting access to the health and education services that they deserve. Why is it that even in an election year Budget National cannot bring itself to actually be genuinely generous to the families and the New Zealanders who are citizens of this country who are responsible who make their contribution who pay their taxes—including beneficiaries I might add—who contribute to the well-being of our nation? But this Government this National Government cannot bring itself to be genuinely generous to those families when they need it the most.This is bitter-sweet but I would like to see the explanation from the Minister as to why the changes in the abatement rates were necessary when it could have been possible to simply improve the family tax credit—as is needed to be done and as is very good; it is a very good change to be made and families will benefit from it. But why was it necessary then to take from a number of those families some of that benefit? They did not deserve to have money taken off them. They deserve to be treated with fairness and decency. Thank you."