Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I have eight questions for the Minister of Revenue straight questions that we haven't dealt with yet. I've had one call in this debate to speak to my amendment to Part 2. I'll give the Minister a heads-up about what it is. It's to clause 3. It would include a new clause 3A that amends section MD 13 of the Income Tax Act. That clause just for the Minister's information is about the family tax credit abatement rate. In my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell's contribution she was talking about the abatement for the FamilyBoost package. This contribution Minister is about the family tax credit abatement rate which my amendment seeks to change.All right to the eight questions that I have which haven't been answered yet the first is about the fiscal cost of the lack of a change to the abatement rate from $42000 to $50000. This was something that was costed into the National Party's provisional Budget. It was in their operating allowance at the time prior to the introduction of this bill. So the House has had two days only to consider the fiscal impact of not doing the abatement rate. I'd like the Minister to give me the fiscal cost of that change and the savings that have resulted from that so that we can understand the impact on low-income families.The second question I have is: how many households would have benefited from the family tax credit had the change to the abatement rate been made? A change from $42000 to $50000 represents perhaps 10000 homes who are now missing out on the family tax credit because that decision has not been taken.The third question I have is: which households? Can the Minister give the committee an understanding of what kind of households are missing out on the change that would have seen them eligible for the family tax credit who because of the decisions not to include a change to the abatement rate in Part 2 of the bill will not be receiving that? Which households are they? What kind of income profiles do they have? And are they exactly the low-income families that the Minister has talked about Part 1 most affecting?The fourth question is: how is it being offset for them? The Minister has talked about low-income families being the primary beneficiaries of those changes to the three categories of the lowest-wage earners in his changes to Part 2—I believe it was the clause 7 changes to Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act. I want to understand how the Minister has gone about offsetting the loss of tax benefits by not increasing the family tax credit abatement rate that will now apply to these low-income households—if indeed it is low-income households; because the Minister hasn't answered my previous questions in the call about how this will affect the tax spread and the tax efficiency outcomes that he surely wants to see from his decisions in this bill.The next question I have is that he did speak about in his answer to my earlier questions there being a number of trade-offs being made here and that the abatement not being made—which would have been the bigger change to his tax package—was about trade-offs and fiscal considerations that were taken by the coalition Government. What I want to understand is: given that it was in the National Party's operating allowance that they campaigned on that doesn't really answer the question because if it was in the operating allowance what has changed in the operating allowance now not to include it? We're not talking about taking on further debt; we're talking about policy decisions which affect exactly the same people which the Minister is trying to get to in his changes in this bill.So the fifth question I have for the Minister—number five—is: is interest deductibility the trade-off that he is talking about? Is it because that change cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than it did in the operating allowance that the National Party was discussing at the election time? Is that the trade-off that he was talking about in his previous answer to my question?Question number six: is it the gambling tax? Is it that the gambling tax does not raise what was expected and is that trade-off that he is talking about in his answer to my question?The next question is: is it overseas buyers? Is overseas buyers and the failure to be able to deliver on that campaign promise the reason why the operating allowance is different and why this abatement hasn't been able to go ahead?The eighth question I'd like the Minister to give us an answer to in this committee is: because of those three measures—questions five six and seven—is that why low-income families who the Minister is helping in Part 1 of the bill will be not receiving that benefit in Part 2 of the bill that they would have received?