Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21969] 
12.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on proposed changes to the tax system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have seen reports that propose that tax changes would be announced within 2 to 3 days of the election date being announced then that the date for announcing those changes would be announced within 2 to 3 days and then that the policy would not be announced for something like another 4 weeks. All those statements came from National within the space of 2 weeks on this occasion. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister received any further reports on proposed tax changes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports that the tax changes proposed would cost about $1 billion per year—indeed “$1 billion per year max” was the phrase used. But the same group has already announced tax proposals that would cost $1.165 billion per year before it has come to the main part of the menu. That of course is the National Party yet again. 
John Key 
: If the Minister thinks that diversification is such a good strategy as he said last night to the Wellington Property Investors Association why is he imposing a capital gains tax on foreign shares held by New Zealand residents which will inevitably result in less diversification for New Zealand investors? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The current tax regime encourages New Zealanders to invest offshore. It differentiates between the destinations of offshore investment. It has four different methods of calculating the foreign investment fund. It is a complex mess that fails to address the fundamental issues. The issue here is how to simplify the system. As usual the National Party proposes a highly complex tax system including an array of tax rebates that would recreate the early 1980s tax system. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister seen a report that indicates that 325000 couples with dependent children could benefit from income splitting; if so why does he continue his opposition to that concept notwithstanding that the current system greatly overtaxes single-income families? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do continue to oppose that system because the gains to those on higher incomes would be a multiple of those on modest incomes. For example the single-income family that earns around $40000 to $50000 per year would gain very very little indeed. For those on $150000 per year the gains would be very very substantial. Again United Future is yet to explain where the reductions in expenditure will occur to pay for that kind of policy. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the real reason for opposing income splitting the fact that it recognises for tax purposes the contribution of the partner who stays at home to raise children thus jeopardising the Government’s bleak vision of seeing all mums in the workforce with strangers providing dawn-to-dusk care? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I must say that in a broader social sense I regard all mums as being in the workforce already. Raising children is a job; it is just that it is often an unpaid one. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order is that the question needs to be addressed. Would the Minister like to have another go. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thought I had rather explained that by saying that in my view women at home looking after children are in the workforce already. At least in terms of my children I have regarded it as something of a job to bring them up. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Gordon Copeland 
: It was rather disingenuous because I specifically talked about mums in the workforce with strangers providing dawn-to-dusk care. The question was not about mums staying at home; it was about mums being in the workforce. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the member is trying to get at is that there is some deep dark socialist plot to force all women out into paid labour. I might say that there is exactly the same attitude among members opposite who have been announcing policy that would do precisely that to women who do not have a husband to help support them.