Norman Russel William: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Norman Russel William: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14318] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill—or the tax-splitting bill as it is probably more accurately described. The Greens will not be supporting the bill; we do not think it is a good bill. 
The reason fundamentally is that if one were to spend $470 million a year with the objective of supporting parents one would not spend the money in this way. Spending $470 million nearly half a billion dollars a year on a scheme in which 70 percent of the value of the credits goes to couples with a joint income of $70000 or more is not a well-targeted scheme. To look at it the other way it is a well-targeted scheme; it is just that it is well targeted towards those who are at the upper end of income earners. Those who are towards the lower end will get very little benefit from this scheme. Even if we look at a family where both parents work and earn a modest income of $35000 we can see they will not get anything from this scheme. 
This scheme is overwhelmingly targeted at two-parent families where one partner is on a pretty good income and they are the ones who will benefit the most from it. That is just the nature of the scheme. Of course one could argue that it is a good idea to spend half a billion dollars a year to support families where one person earns a lot of money and the other one does not. But I argue that in the kind of society in which we live which is highly unequal and has very widespread poverty spending half a billion dollars a year on that particular group is not a very wise way to spend money. Part of that reasoning relies on the Green Party’s view that inequality is a problem. For those who do not think that inequality is a problem and are happy to increase inequality through a measure such as this then it is not an issue. But if one thinks that inequality is a problem—New Zealand is one of the most unequal countries within the OECD—then this scheme will only exacerbate the inequality that we already have. 
It is also just straight discrimination against sole parents. Sole parents of course will not benefit from this bill. Sole parents will contribute towards the half a billion dollars a year in foregone taxes that it will cost the Government but they themselves will not benefit at all from this bill. It discriminates in a straight and unadulterated way against sole parents. The Green Party thinks sole parents should not be discriminated against. We think sole parents have a pretty tough job and they deserve support. For us it does not seem right that we should spend half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on a benefit that is not accessible to sole parents. 
One may argue—perhaps those from the moral majority or from a conservative point of view argue this—that sole parents have something wrong with them that they should be punished because they are sole parents and that that is why we need a bill that punishes them and gives money to people who are in relationships. But the Green Party does not take that view. We think sole parents have a tough job and we should support sole parents rather than— 
Simon Bridges 
: Don’t be silly! No it doesn’t. Helping families to parent doesn’t mean you’re hurting solo parents. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: I hear the National member interjecting. National is voting tonight for a bill that discriminates against sole parents. I say to every sole parent in New Zealand that tonight National is voting for a bill that discriminates against sole parents and gives half a billion dollars a year to people on the basis that they are in relationships. It says that if people are sole parents they will not get a cent of that money. National will vote for a bill tonight that discriminates against sole parents to the tune of half a billion dollars a year and that says to those people who are sole parents: “Tough luck we are not going to support you.” The Green Party will not support that. We think that sole parents have a tough enough job; they do not need the taxation system to discriminate against them further. 
We think that if the Government wants to support parents and we totally understand that the drive of the member behind this bill is to support parents then there are better ways to do that. Labour introduced Working for Families which discriminates against the very poor because it does not include those who are on benefits. Why does the Government not extend Working for Families to those who are on benefits so that some of the poorest parents in our country who are out of work through no fault of their own but because there is this thing called the recession could get some support? The Working for Families package which the Green Party supported because it does help to reduce inequality does not help those at the very bottom. So if the Government has half a billion dollars to spend every year on supporting families then why does it not direct that money to families who are in the bottom income range rather than to those who are in the middle to upper income range as this bill does? If the Government has half a billion dollars a year to spend on supporting families why is it giving it to those at the top? Why does it not give it to those who are in the bottom deciles? It seems to me that extending Working for Families to those groups would be a better way to spend half a billion dollars a year. 
There is also the option of extending paid parental leave. The advantage of paid parental leave is that it provides support for parents with newborns and young children so that they can be paid during the first part of their child’s life. If the Government has half a billion dollars a year to spend then why does it not spend it on that? It seems to me that is a much more targeted way to spend half a billion dollars a year. It is not an insubstantial amount and it does surprise me that National which tells us that we are short of money is happy to vote for a bill that will cost $470 million a year when 78 percent—three-quarters—of the value of the credits will go to couples with a joint income of $70000 or more a year. That is the problem. 
National is proposing to vote for a bill that costs half a billion dollars and overwhelmingly the benefits will go to those at the upper end despite the fact that we live in a society that is grossly unequal and has more inequality than pretty much any other country in the OECD—or the developed Western countries. Tonight National is voting for a bill that will add to the inequality by directing taxes towards those at the top. Why do we not vote for a bill that will direct some support to those at the bottom so that we reduce inequality in our country rather than increase it? 
I think others have acknowledged that the member in charge of this bill Peter Dunne is promoting it with good intent and I acknowledge that. Also I know a lot of people think this bill is a great idea when they first hear about it and of course many people in this House would be beneficiaries of this bill were it to pass. Although the Minister in charge of the bill has good intentions and although the bill on first appearances seems to have some benefits the fact remains that it is an extremely problematic bill. It will not help those who need help the most. For that reason the Green Party will not be voting for it tonight.