Copeland Gordon: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Copeland Gordon: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18346] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I found it very interesting to contrast the two speeches made by the co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons and then my own leader Peter Dunne in the context of this debate. I have long known particularly since I have been here that the Greens tend to trade on fear so I noted down some of the words Jeanette Fitzsimons used in her speech. She mentioned “fear” once “threaten” twice “dangerous” once “worrying” once and “the coming crisis” once. I found it a little bit ironic that a couple of days after Jeanette Fitzsimons’ state of the planet speech on peak oil the US Government announced that it had just issued permits for new exploration in a vast area of Alaska with an estimate that it might yield 13 billion new barrels of oil. So I do not think that Armageddon is about to descend on us yet. I remember in my days in the oil industry about 1980 in today’s terms the price of oil was US$104 a barrel contrasting with $44 a barrel today. So I think we should really take some of that with a pinch of salt. 
On the other hand I noted some of Peter Dunne’s words such as “new spirit” “confidence” three times “certainty” “hope” “identity” and “purpose. I just note the great contrast between the two speeches. 
 I want though to come back to the Prime Minister’s statement. It is clear from that statement the Government has no intention of cutting or reducing taxes in this year’s Budget. But I believe that it should because—as I will outline—there is a fundamental inequality in the present system that affects the income of families and needs to be fixed. I speak of the current inability of couples with dependent children to split their income for taxation purposes. 
I believe that couples should be able to split their incomes fifty-fifty for taxation purposes. Each partner should then be taxed as if that person had personally earned that 50 percent share which would result in a significant reduction in tax for many families. I gave an example at question time today. It would result in a reduction of $3000 a year for a sole-income family on $60000 a year. 
United Future believes that inequity and unfairness in the tax system must be brought to an end and we do not intend to let up on this issue until it is resolved to our satisfaction and income splitting becomes a fact for New Zealand families. 
Let us take a sole-income family on $60000 as an example. Under the current system it would pay $14670 per annum in tax. Under income splitting that would be reduced to $11700—a saving of $2970 per annum or $57 a week. As I mentioned such an option is not at present available to couples under the New Zealand tax system but it should be. The status quo is grossly unfair for a number of reasons. Firstly as I have just illustrated a family with dependent children on a single income of $60000 is paying about $3000 more per year than an equivalent-sized family where each partner earns $30000 per annum. That is unfair because its needs are essentially the same. 
Secondly the present tax system means that people who have no dependants pay exactly the same amount of tax as people with dependants. That is unfair and it breaches the fundamental principle contained in the “from each according to their means to each according to their need” basis of a progressive tax system. That is something the Labour Party used to be careful to uphold. 
Obviously the sole breadwinner in say a family of four—two adults and two children—has a net income need that is far greater than that of a single individual. In addition couples who are self-employed in farming or business and retired couples are already able to split their income for tax purposes. It is only those working families whose income is derived from salaries or wages who are unable to split income and that is unfair. Therefore income splitting for couples with dependent children rectifies and corrects a fundamental anomaly in the present tax system. 
However it goes further than that. Income splitting also specifically recognises that the spouse or partner who has opted out of the workforce in order to raise the children is making a full and indeed vital contribution to our society. The assignment of 50 percent of the household income to the principal caregiver of the children tangibly recognises that reality. Put another way it is fair to view a couple with dependent children as forming a fifty-fifty partnership which has the essential goal of giving their children the best possible start in life. Raising children is the most important job in the world. Simply stated income splitting and the resultant savings in tax plays an important role in providing such families with an income sufficient to live on.