Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16602] 
6.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does his answer to question No. 3 yesterday indicate that he considers the tax regime that applies to families is fair? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In general terms yes. There is always room for improvement and that is one of the reasons for the tax elements in the Working for Families package. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does that answer the Minister’s comment yesterday that he was not in favour of income splitting and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s comment earlier this week that the Government was not looking to allow capitalisation of benefits arising from the Working for Families programme for the purpose of home purchase mean that as far as the Minister is concerned the Working for Families package as it presently stands is as good as it gets for families? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I look forward in the long term to a Labour-led Government supported by United Future and whatever other parties continuing to deliver substantial gains for families progressively year by year. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that by 2008 207000—or 64 percent—of the recipients of the Working for Families package will be welfare beneficiaries and was that the policy intent when he designed the scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The policy intent was both to increase the gap between paid income and benefit income which the package does and to lift the incomes of all low to middle income families which the package does. Under Labour the number of families who depend upon benefits has been falling. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there is some sympathy on this side of the House for the tax relief suggestions that United Future occasionally makes; if he is aware of that would he recommend that United Future members show a bit more fortitude and stick to their guns in which case they might succeed or is he quite happy that they roll over continually? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have a positive relationship. Mr Copeland is full of many ideas for reducing the Government’s revenue not all of which are affordable—at least not simultaneously. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why should a family with a single income of $60000 per annum pay $57 per week more than another family in which one partner is earning $40000 and the other $20000 when both families have the same pre-tax income; how can that be regarded as fair? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member does point to a difficulty that is created by progressive tax rates but income splitting creates the opposite problem in that there is significant disadvantage for the single-income family in many respects particularly in that higher-income families get much better tax relief than lower-income families. That will always be the problem around income splitting. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister recovered physically from the injuries no doubt inflicted on him by the rigorous and aggressive presentation and prosecution of the United Future party’s case whenever its members talk to him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the United Future party incorporates a large Christian party element. I have always found those members gentle Christian knights to deal with in these respects. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister believe that there is wisdom in the statement: “That in all cases where a woman elects to superintend her own household and to be the mother of children there shall be a law attaching a just share of her husband’s earnings” as stated by Kate Sheppard in 1896; and would not income splitting fulfil at long last those aspirations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I am afraid that relationships within families are a bit more complicated than that. If the result of that was that the income of say a family earning $60000 a year was split into two amounts of $30000 and the husband kept one lot and the wife with say three children had the other that would be distinctly unfair I would have thought. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister prefer working with a party that engages reasonably in discussion or would he prefer to work with a party that demands its own way every week? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Hide that I said on a previous occasion that that was my final warning. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister prefer working with a party that has reasonable discussion and recommendations or with a party that would demand its own way every week and would if it did not succeed in that put the country and the economy at risk by pulling down the Government every other week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not my experience at the moment working with Mr Dail Jones on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill matter but I would say that the Government’s motto in this respect is “Working with Families” and the Government’s policy is that families are often quite different one from the other. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the true reason that the Minister cannot consider income splitting the fact that his Government supported by the United Future party brought in amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act that mean it is almost impossible now to define what a family is anyway? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Absolutely not! Technically income splitting for tax purposes is no more difficult than a number of other aspects of the current taxation system. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table the answer to written question No. 13537 which shows amongst other things that 64 percent of recipients of the Working for Families package are welfare beneficiaries. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.