Brown Simeon; Parker DavidSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to carry on from where my colleague Simon Watts was asking some questions before which is around clause 4 regarding the replacement figure for the minimum family tax credit. Under this proposed piece of legislation it proposes to replace the number $30576" with "$31096" and he had a very good question which was asking what advice or formulas had the officials used to come up with the figure $31096. I didn't get an answer Simon didn't get an answer Chris didn't get an answer—none of us got an answer—and Madam Chair I don't think you got an answer either. I think it would be helpful to the committee if the Minister could actually answer that question. What he said was something along the lines of "Well that's just what officials came up with." Well it's nice. It's nice that officials came up with a number—well done thank you. But we'd like to actually have an answer to the question about how they came up with that number because as I think it was Michael Woodhouse or one of my colleagues earlier or it might have been Maureen Pugh actually—I think you said it. It's a difference of $520 between those two which is $10 a week. So was it that they thought "Well maybe we should increase it by 10 bucks a week. That's a good number. That's easily dividable: $520 divided by 52 equals 10. It sounds quite good."? Or was there an actual formula applied—Hon Poto Williams: Point of order Madam Chairperson. I just raise this point of order given that we have changed Speakers' rulings around how we conduct committee stage debates and they are much more attuned to asking questions of the Minister and receiving answers. Can I just say that that member in his last couple of contributions has taken four calls has been repetitious and has not actually in my view—and this may be something that I would like you to think about—not really—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. I—Chris Bishop: Point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. I am ready to rule on this. We're in urgency. This bill has not gone through a select committee stage and so it is quite in order to allow detailed questions around what is provided for in this bill. Chris Bishop: Point of order Madam Chairperson. Just a point of order. I just want you to clarify and make it clear to the committee that despite our new practice being questions being encouraged during the committee of the whole House stage members taking five-minute calls is acceptable and that you don't need the encouragement and help from former Assistant Speakers who are no longer in that role. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I thank the member. SIMEON BROWN: Well thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the opportunity to continue with this line of questioning which I think is actually very relevant and quite a detailed question. I know the Minister in the chair understands the nature of the question and is I hope going to be able to give a detailed answer to how that figure was come to. I make the point that this is the committee of the whole House—this is the only chance that this Parliament has to interrogate this piece of legislation. The legislation was dropped by the Government at about 4.30 this afternoon. That was the first it was brought to Parliament. It hasn't gone to a select committee submitters haven't been able to have an opportunity to submit on it and this is my chance and the Opposition's chance to be able to actually interrogate the detail. We haven't even had an opportunity to be briefed by officials. Ministers should be coming down to the House and actually encouraging questions because actually this is the opportunity for the Opposition to hold this Government to account and there's so much in this bill which needs to be held to account. So the answer is—the question is sorry. The answer will come soon I'm sure—I hope—and I hope it's a good one because otherwise we'll have more questions. The question is: what was the formula used to come to the difference between $30576 and $31096? Also I guess the other question would be whether the Minister is prepared to table the advice in relation to that on whether there's some formula or is there a formula that's used? He's talked about Consumers Price Index adjustments which are used in other instances. If these changes are made in this way again is there a formula that officials would use in a general way or is it something which is just made up on a case by case basis? Providing some of that assurance to us on this side of the House around how these decisions are made and how they're come to would give us more confidence in the legislation which has been put forward. So look that is something that I do ask the Minister to address. A very important question I do note—our right our only opportunity here in this Parliament with this piece of legislation to actually put these questions to the Minister. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): There's no change in the underlying principle here which has been around for a long time. The threshold is calculated to reflect the maximum income that someone on a benefit can earn including their benefit plus their allowable earnings in addition to their benefit taking into account the abatement of their benefit caused by those additional earnings. That overall figure is then calculated and the minimum family tax credit is calculated at $1 more than that figure so that in theory the person in work will always earn more than someone that is on a benefit."