Boyack Rachel; Menéndez March Ricardo; Watts SimonRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. The South Island thanks you Madam Chair. Look I wanted to come back because I appreciate that there has been—James Meager: Oh new material Rachel Boyack.RACHEL BOYACK: Look I think Mr Meager should take a call but I appreciate—Hon Member: Yield.RACHEL BOYACK: —we're not going to go there again—that on this side of the Chamber there have been some questions that we put to the Minister again. I guess I've made this point and I often make this point during urgency at this stage of a debate that we—Hon Member: New material?RACHEL BOYACK: I'm going to make it again. The reason I'm making this is that tax is actually the most significant topic that we can discuss in this House I would put on record and the Minister is agreeing so I'm really hoping that he's actually going to come back and answer the questions that have been put already by myself by my colleague Deborah Russell and by my colleague Ginny Andersen specifically around the interactions between these tax credits. I note that we do not have the opportunity to interrogate this matter in front of a select committee. The Minister has access to his officials to help guide him. So we would like to have a response to that question. We've been discussing this on this side of the Chamber; we would like to hear about it.The particular issue we have is that when all of these different tax mechanisms interact with each other there are times when a person could end up as the Hon Dr Deborah Russell noted even being in debt to the IRD which is not something I think any member in this Chamber would like to see—Glen Bennett: Not at all.RACHEL BOYACK: Definitely not at all Mr Bennett. So the question I had specifically for the Minister was that under Labour we introduced payday filing which I'm sure everyone understands is when there is a real-time tracking between the employer making the payment and the IRD to ensure that we have that real-time record. I've certainly been contacted by the IRD before to say under that system that I was on the wrong tax code at one point. The question we had that was quite specific around this piece of legislation is: what mechanisms is the Government going to look at in terms of ensuring people are advised rather than waiting until the worst happens at the end of a tax year and they have a debt to the IRD? I'm sure none of us would want to see that particularly—let's be clear—with low-income families; I think we would all like to make sure that they are receiving the correct mechanism throughout that year.I see the Minister jumped up but the last time that happened I didn't get an opportunity to complete my call. The other thing I just wanted to ask the Minister specifically because he did earlier in the debate bring in the conversation around child poverty. I note yes this is a tight debate but the Minister has actually introduced that matter himself into the debate. We on this side of the House do have questions about child poverty. My specific question is that we have seen from the Budget figures that there is an indication that child poverty numbers will increase in New Zealand as a result of these changes. On this side of the House we are concerned about that. We put in place measures to ensure that we knew what the position was for the country and we're very concerned to see that going backwards. So my question to the Minister is: what specific advice has he received on the interaction between the tax changes that the Government is making through this bill? Again I note we do not have the opportunity to get a departmental report. The Finance and Expenditure Committee—Todd Stephenson: It's just normal. Normal practice. RACHEL BOYACK: —would get an independent adviser to come in and actually ask these questions and provide this advice. We are not having that opportunity. I'm just noting under the Standing Orders Mr Stephenson—go read a book—that this is an important part of the debate. We do have officials here who can advise the Minister who could answer these questions. We on this side of the Chamber would like to hear those answers. Thank you.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much Madam Chair. I do want to echo the fact that we haven't had a select committee hearing. I also want to respond to the Minister's comment that while he may claim that the clauses in Part 3 are tight actually this is regarding the increase to those base rates. Those have significant impacts. So let's not conflate short language in legislation to a small impact to our communities; I think that's a disservice to the people who this bill claims to serve.So the Minister alluded to the fact that he had engaged with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that there was engagement with the Minister of Social Development. I want to ask what was fed to him and to the Government form the Minister of Social Development in those consultations. Because I do think that we didn't have a select committee hearing; we could have had robust engagement and evidence in relationship to what the Minister of Social Development said. He's got the officials behind him. So I think this is one of the flagship things in the Budget. The Government owes the public to have a robust discussion on who exactly will be impacted. We haven't received any form of engagement or even an address to for example the evidence that the in-work tax credit and increases to the in-work tax credit actually support reducing unemployment. I think the Minister owes the public a bit more robust engagement with the evidence behind this.The Minister has also not been able to address and has refused to even take note who the people who will face a greater effective marginal tax rate are. Who are these people? He's got the officials behind him. If he cared about a robust debate he actually would be seeking greater advice because this like I said isn't just a casual bill; this is one of the flagship things in the Budget. I think if members of the Opposition are trying to ascertain the robustness of the work the Minister owes us some answers.Finally I know that we've talked about the impact on disabled people in relationship to other parts of the bill but I did want to get a sense of in relationship very specifically to the increases in the in-work tax credit base rate how many of those parents who are in work who will receive a top-up have disabled children and have other additional needs. I wanted to get a sense as to whether he had had any interactions with MSD specifically in those interactions in the system.Then I wanted to get a sense of what engagement with Whaikaha had been specifically on the increase to the in-work tax credit.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): With not risking more repetition but I will note again that we have undertaken significant engagement with multiple agencies in regards to this. One of the uniquenesses—and maybe this is an incentive to try and accelerate and close this out but we're talking about legislation that hasn't yet passed. It needs to pass before we know what impact that will have exactly. We won't know who the individuals are by specifics until they file their returns in the future. So asking questions about who these people are and what they are in the specific nature is just simply not possible. So the theoretical element of the question is without basis.