Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill

As I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill, it is very clear that members on this side have a whole host of questions for the Minister about how this bill will really take this country into a future direction that is positive for New Zealand. Looking at this bill, one of the first questions for the Minister is: what in this bill will keep some of our professional, educated New Zealanders in this country? What will keep our nurses and doctors from going to Australia and the UK, our teachers from leaving to go to better salaries overseas, and even our social workers from going to London? What will make it easier for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services to not only get social workers, but also be able to keep them and pay decent wages? One of the things that is absent in this bill is any discussion about how it will contribute to economic growth and grow the pie. This bill is just about redistributing the pie and handing it out to different New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Vote bribe.

It is a vote buyer—it is nothing more than a bribe. I ask the Minister: where is the courage of his convictions? If he was serious about putting his plans in place, then how come these benefits are dribbled out over the next couple of years? That has been the major feedback over the last couple of days. People are saying that if the Government is serious about this, why is it not putting these plans in place earlier? They are saying: “Well, I might get something 3 years down the track, but big deal!”. In today’s Dominion Post, Jane Clifton said: “Jam tomorrow and a smear of Marmite today.” This proves that it really is an election bribe. All the benefits conveniently start to filter in after the next election. There is nothing in here to provide a blueprint for making this country a better place for a larger group of New Zealanders. There is nothing in here about growing the economy or creating an environment where our professionals, educated New Zealanders, and tradespeople will stay. It is not just the nurses, teachers, and doctors taking off; it is also our plumbers, electricians, and those people who have any kind of skill, because they can travel across the ditch and get better salaries and wages.

A lot of these things happen sometime in the future. Now, if this Government were serious about making a difference to its voters, then it would have the start date more or less immediately. One of the things that is quite strange is why members are debating this in urgency at all, as there is nothing in this bill that kicks in before this October. The Government is not changing any taxes or putting up any prices. Those members are here only because they want to make a huge performance and try to convince their voters that they are doing something glamorous and making a major change.

Well, I think most of us can see through this. This is nothing more than a cute performance to make it look as if the Government is doing something—marmite today and jam tomorrow, for many of Labour’s voters. This bill is called “future directions”, but I ask what future this legislation will actually give to families in New Zealand. What is in it for the young student who has just got a degree and gone off to get his or her first job? What is in it for young married couples who have no children? Nothing. That is why the feedback on the Budget has been mixed. I imagine that the Minister is pretty gutted that many New Zealanders have not looked at the Budget and cried: “Yeehah, we’re for Labour!”. New Zealanders have realised that four out of five families get nothing from the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill.

Even the childcare part of the bill is a bit of a joke. Anybody who listened to Morning Report would have heard that Sean Plunket has his kids in a private childcare arrangement. Those families who choose not to be in community-based childcare facilities will get nothing. Once again, it is social engineering at its worst.

If this Government had the courage of its convictions, the start dates would not be in some far-flung year in the future, conveniently after the next election. The Government would not be holding this lolly scramble out and basically telling New Zealanders: “Yes, there is going to be a lolly scramble, but the lollies will be delivered right up until 2007.” In this bill, there is a major change that will not be good for New Zealand.

How would one feel the morning after one’s great Budget—heralded throughout the country for days as the great saviour of the Labour Government—after reading the New Zealand Herald headline: “One for the kids (and for their parents’ votes)”. It then goes on to state: “Michael Cullen fulfils his role in life by splashing out to give poor families $100 a week more … eventually”. This is legislation that shows no aspiration for this country’s future—none at all. It is a simple redistribution. How typical of a Government hell-bent on the sorts of socialist policies Labour has.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Right on!

Every small-business operator and every person on a low wage in this country should be terrified on hearing Michael Cullen say that, because what they now know is that as long as there is a Labour Government those who are low paid will get in their pocket only the money the Government says they can have. I think that is quite unacceptable.

I ask the Minister of Finance why we are here today. Clearly, the first part of his package is already appropriated, and we do not need the $600 million - odd in this giveaway until next April or well beyond that point. But the Minister has decided that Government members will come into the Chamber, belt this bill through under urgency, and then try to convince the public of New Zealand that this Government has done something amazing and immediate.

There is nothing amazing or immediate about this bill. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the reason this bill is not going to a select committee is that proper scrutiny of it would see it torn to bits, as that would be the best way to deliver better incomes for low-paid New Zealanders. It would be torn to bits, because this bill is all about condemning low-paid workers—for the benefit of the Government—and making them beneficiaries rather than workers.

This Budget will go down historically as being the Budget that started to pave the road from work to welfare.

💬 Darren Hughes: Nonsense!

The soon-to-be-retired member from Kapiti over the other side is saying “Nonsense!”. He should go and ask low-paid workers in his electorate whether they want to have a Government handout or whether they want to keep more of the money they earn—and, more important, whether they want to earn more money.

This Budget was, as has been pointed out very well by the leader of the ACT party, a Budget in which we could have had enormous economic stimulation, to the point where New Zealanders’ salaries might have started to move in a much quicker fashion towards those of our near neighbour, Australia. But, no, Dr Cullen, in a bit of panic and knowing that the nation across the border has got sick of the Government telling it what to do all the time—which it has started to indicate in the polls—decided that he would put a few markers out in the sand to see how keen it is to run and pick them up. Is it not an irony that when the problem is that the people are sick of being told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, the Government comes in and says to a big chunk of those people: “This is what you can have, this is when you can have it, and this is all you’re going to get.” That will just exacerbate the situation that the Labour Party finds itself in, and this great centrepiece of the Budget, the so-called Future Directions package, will not do it one bit of good in the eyes of this country’s voting population.

How can it proclaim that the future direction for low-paid workers and for struggling families is simply a hope that the Government might, on a more regular basis, allow them to keep more of the money they already earn? I heard Dr Cullen this morning saying that families cannot be advantaged to the same extent by reducing tax rates. I think that is an utter nonsense.

I would like deal with that last point first, before I go on to a few other matters. Let us take the case of the Waihi family—which, I suspect, might have a bit of a connection with another party in this House—on $55,000 a year. That family will gain $150 a week. To deliver that through the tax system, what flat tax rate would we need? The rate would be 11.3 percent flat tax. What would that cost? Mr Williamson will buy that. The cost of that in revenue terms is equal to the entire expenditure on education and health put together. That is how much money we would lose from the 11.3 percent flat tax rate. We would have to demolish the health system and the education system and then say: “Haven’t we been very clever? We’ve got a system that isn’t targeted out of that.”

The member asked what happens in terms of gains to employment. We have widened the gap in this package between benefits and work, from a Lockwood Smith width to a Gerry Brownlee width. That is what we have done. It has gone up a long, long way.

What is the National Party’s objection to the package in this legislation? Listen to the confusion, as always! What members say is that it is an election bribe, it is not big enough, and it should be sooner. They say it is a lolly-scramble, and it should be a lolly stampede. That is what the National Party says. Mr Brownlee holds up a newspaper—one of the few things he can hide behind—which states: “One for the kids”. He says that is a bad condemnation of the Budget. That confused ramble down either road will not reflect anything in terms of where ordinary middle New Zealanders are. “One for the kids” is a bad headline? My God! To me, that is a dream headline arising from a Budget; one I could scarcely have written myself.

So what are those members trying to say? They are trying to say: “We’re actually jealous that they’ve managed to do this. We wish we could have done it.” They will not say what they are trying to do. If this package comes into force a little bit after the election, then to be an election bribe there has to be an assumption that the National Party would repeal it. Ah, yes, those members have cottoned on. They have suddenly realised the trap they have created for themselves with bad, illogical thinking. It is only a bribe on behalf of the Labour Party if it will not be there post-election if there is a change of Government.

So perhaps Mr Brownlee would like to take a call during another part. Perhaps, with Dr Lockwood Smith grinning behind him, he might like to tell us whether a National Government would repeal the Future Directions package. Would it repeal it? Will one of the 15 members of the National Party who have bothered to stay to work today tell us whether they would repeal this package? I think we could sit here for a couple of hours and ask that question as we go through the Committee stage, and wait for an answer. Let me try it again. Would the National Party repeal the package?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Someone stop the clock!

That is right, because that is all that will save that member—stopping the clock at this particular point in time. That is all that will save Mr Brownlee.

The answer is that of course they would. Of course they would take these gains away, because this is not their favoured group in society. They do not want a headline that states: “One for the kids”. They want a headline that states: “One taken away from the kids”. Mr Brownlee wants to be the lolly stealer from the children of New Zealand. That is what he wants to do. He wants to mount a raid from Ilam Road down into where I used to live in Burwood—a raid into middle-income New Zealand—and take the lollies back off the kids that the Labour Party is supposed to be offering them. Come the next election, I think that will be a pretty good kind of contest to run between Labour and National. We cannot wait for that to be the focus of the next election campaign.

Who is for families? The Labour Party, the Progressive party, and the United Future party are, and the Green Party is—with reservations. The New Zealand First party is. Barbara Stewart gave an eloquent speech on the problems of child poverty. But the National Party is not, and the ACT party does not count. That is all there is of them there.

I am happy to take up the challenges given to us by the Minister of Finance, but first, I want to put it on the record that I regard it as unparliamentary and bad lawmaking that a bill of this sort that should be going through the normal procedure to a select committee is not doing so. The only reason a bill would not be sent to a select committee would be if it were genuinely urgent. But, as has been pointed out, and as the public has worked out, the first of the changes does not arrive until October, and the significant changes arrive in April next year. Those changes are all for welfare beneficiaries. The workers, whom Mr Cullen said he was in favour of and was giving incentives to, do not receive anything for 2 years. We can understand why the Government does not want to send that to a select committee. That would be the first submission it would receive.

We have an interesting situation. Treasury says there is a $6 billion surplus, but the Minister of Finance, apparently, has lost most of the money. But Treasury keeps writing down $6 billion, and I am sticking to that. We have the largest surplus ever, yet the Government states that it cannot do anything for 2 years, and then challenges us to say whether we would wait 2 years, as it is doing. The answer is no, we would not. While I do not like this package, I will support New Zealand First’s sensible amendment that if this is so urgent, we should bring it on.

I also say to Dr Cullen that if he is so keen to have an election, let us have one. I say to him that I know which of the proposals will win—the proposal of the ACT party to have a prosperity-creating tax cut versus these payments for social welfare beneficiaries. Is the first clause of Part 1 in this bill all about workers? No. Clause 3 is headed: “Social Security Act 1964 called principal Act in this part”. Of course, it is. This is a welfare Budget. It is not a Budget for workers. It is in black and white—the principal Act is the Social Welfare Act. Why is that?

When one looks at the numbers, who will be getting the money? The money will be going to beneficiaries. When one looks at what families will get, the majority of working families with dependants will get nothing from this Budget. If one looks at the whole of New Zealand, four out of five New Zealanders will get nothing from this Budget. We will not support Dr Cullen in that unfairness. We ought to be returning the money to the people it belongs to.

Dr Cullen and the Labour Party should think back. People are saying that this is the first Labour Budget for 30 years. I remember Charles Waldegrave and his misery industry saying in 1989—after Roger Douglas had been sacked, David Caygill was put in, and he put up a Budget of this sort—what a wonderful Labour Budget it was.

💬 Opposition Member: Did he?

Yes. Did it work? No, it did not, and I will tell members why. First, the majority of working people did not get anything. Next, welfare beneficiaries were not grateful, either, and why was that? The majority of people on welfare do not plan to stay there. When they are told to vote Labour and in 2 years’ time they will get more money, they will say: “That’s not me. I’m going to be off welfare.” If members opposite think that this is a popular Budget, they should look back at David Caygill’s giveaway Budget in 1989. It went down like a rock, and so will this Budget.

The Government has also made this mistake: Government members have gone around the country for a month saying—as we read in the New Zealand Herald—that families that earn up to $80,000 a year will benefit. People thought that would be so, and no doubt the Labour Party did recover. I would like the Government to produce this $80,000-a-year working family that will benefit from this Budget. In 3 years’ time, that family might benefit, providing it has nine kids. There will be about three families in the whole of New Zealand that will benefit from this Budget.

It appears that in the Committee stage the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, will not take the opportunity to answer some of our questions. I note the sarcastic, cheeky comments made by the Minister of Finance, who in the normal course of events would be going around the country proudly defending his Budget, but on this occasion—to make sure that he did not have to leave Wellington to defend his Budget—slams the House into urgency to pass measures that will not need to be enacted until 2007.

As many members on this side of the House have pointed out, if the Government is so proud of this legislation, it should allow it to go to a select committee, allow it to be scrutinised by the public of New Zealand, and allow New Zealanders to comment on how they think they will be better off. But no, Dr Cullen and Mr Maharey have no intention of allowing this legislation to go to a select committee. They know that they have conned members like Darren Hughes, who yells across the Chamber that this Budget is for working families. Mr Maharey and Dr Cullen know that this legislation is about giving more money to people who are on benefits, and it is about putting more New Zealanders on to a benefit who at the moment do not have to interface with the benefit system.

I tell Dr Cullen and Mr Maharey that the real, sad thing about this Budget is that nobody will seriously give thought to the creation of wealth. This Budget is all about simply redistributing money to people who are battling away and paying far higher taxes now than they did before this Labour Government. Dr Cullen and Mr Maharey have missed the opportunity to turn back this excessive take in tax from New Zealanders and give it back to those hard-working New Zealanders.

I remind Mr Maharey that 46 percent of all the tax that is collected by PAYE is taken off people who earn $60,000 or more. Mr Maharey looks up with surprise. He had forgotten that. He should open his Budget pack and look at the simple little card in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, which demonstrates that about 12 percent of all working New Zealanders are now paying the high tax rate of 39 cents, despite solemn promises on a credit card from the Prime Minister that that figure would affect 5 percent of taxpayers. I want the Minister to acknowledge that not only are 12 percent paying the tax rate of 39 cents but that people in that tax bracket are now paying nearly half of all the income tax that is collected.

That lolly-scramble does nothing to address the real problem that faces New Zealand, which is the long-term growth rate of New Zealand. While Mr Maharey sighs and appears totally uninterested in this legislation—

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: In this speech, yes.

If the Minister thinks that he can answer some of the questions we are raising, he should take a call. That is the purpose of the Committee stage. He is not prepared to send the legislation to the select committee, because he does not want it to be scrutinised there. However, if he thinks he is doing such a good job, why does he not acknowledge that more children are living in poverty than when he became the Minister? We now have more usage of food banks in this country than when Mr Maharey became the Minister. The lolly-scramble of dishing out money to people in the hope that the Labour Party might resurrect itself in the polls and buy back some votes is why the legislation is being rushed through today, even though there is no intention of delivering the bulk of it until 2007. That is a sham and a con, and it has been accepted as that by most New Zealanders.

I have listened to many National Party members come up with all sorts of excuses about why this is bad legislation. They keep forgetting one very important point: this legislation will help people get into work. It will help them get off the benefit and into work. We have a huge shortage of ready employees out there, so why do we not get some beneficiaries off the benefit? That can only help businesses. I thought National was a party that helped businesses. This legislation will help businesses, because it will help and encourage people to get into work and fill those job vacancies. I would have thought that National would support this bill, because it will help businesses and improve the welfare of many people on the poverty line.

Let us look at another National claim. National claims that this legislation does nothing for education; I say that it does. If National members would just listen, they would learn something from this: by putting a little bit more money in the pockets of beneficiaries, those people will have money to provide breakfast for their kids. An awful lot of school kids go to school without having had breakfast, and a lot of schools have to provide breakfasts. They have to provide breakfasts if only to get those kids to learn. If those kids go to school with empty stomachs they will not learn or concentrate, so schools have to put on food. This bill will help parents to be able to provide for their children rather than rely on schools to do that. So National should wake up and smell the coffee, and realise that this bill will help those on the poverty line. It will help them with their education, and it will help businesses.

The bill needs to come into effect now. I think Richard Prebble acknowledged that the dates New Zealand First is proposing should be brought forward, so that people get the benefit now. They desperately need it now. Those kids cannot keep on going to school on empty stomachs; they need that benefit now. So the bill has a huge flow-on effect, which starts with improved learning and a reduction in truancy, because when those kids stop learning at their early stages, they start to wag school. Then they start getting into petty crime, hanging around street corners, and marking buildings with graffiti. That then leads on to long-term crime. If we can stop that with this bill, and if this bill goes anywhere near helping that, then you have to support it. I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I brought you into that argument. We must support it, and everybody in this Parliament must support it.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I think the Chairman supports it, actually.

Maybe the Chairman does support it, but I did not want to bring him into it. He is neutral; he should sit there and not be brought into this discussion. In summary, this bill helps people to get into employment.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It does absolutely nothing for growth.

If it gets people into employment and helps businesses, surely that will improve growth. If we have additional people going into employment they will fill those gaps that businesses are crying out about. Businesses are crying out for additional staff, because they cannot get them. This legislation will help. With its benefits, businesses will be able to afford to take on those extra people, and be able to have improved employment and wealth.

In summary, this bill will go a long way to assisting people into employment. It will help children to go to school with full stomachs, and it will help businesses grow.

I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, to explain to the Committee—because this is very important—why this legislation is not being referred to a select committee. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be referred to a select committee. Nothing in this bill that I can find happens before 1 October. If there is something that happens before 1 October, then let the Minister get to his feet and tell us what that is.

Anyone who knows anything about the interaction between our benefit system—the way benefits abate, how those interact with our tax credit system, and how that interacts with our stepwise progressive income tax system—knows that these issues are hugely complex. I tell the Minister in the chair that he and Dr Cullen are not the only people who have done a lot of work on this sort of stuff. If the Minister and Dr Cullen think they can stand in this Parliament and arrogantly say that the only way National could address this matter through the tax system is by giving massive tax cuts to certain people, they are showing they have not opened their minds to what is possible through innovative thinking.

The Inland Revenue Department is involved in the policy work on the interaction between benefits, tax credits, and the income tax system. It is so complex—and I would like the Minister to listen to this—that the department has struggled at times to actually work out correctly how the system currently works. This legislation will make it even more complex.

Given the complexity of those interactions it is inexcusable that this bill is not going to a select committee. I wager there will be problems with what this bill is setting out. Let us forget the policy and forget for a moment what the Government is trying to do, because this Committee is meant to be scrutinising the detail of this bill because it is not going to a select committee. The Minister cannot guarantee there will not be huge problems because of a lack of scrutiny of the detail of this bill. It will go through all stages today, and there will be no detailed scrutiny in terms of what it does. I simply repeat that the issues are hugely complex.

I would not mind betting that the Minister in the chair probably does not even know how one calculates the net tax position of someone on a benefit, who receives tax credits, and also pays income tax. I would not mind betting that he has never actually worked it out. I would not mind betting, for example, that he probably does not even know how the different benefits and credits that this bill is talking about, abate—whether they abate on gross income or net income, whether tax then applies, whether things have to be grossed up to sort out final tax commitments, and all that kind of thing. It is hugely complex, and I have studied it in some detail.

This legislation would be some of the more complex that we have seen before this Parliament, yet it is not even going to a select committee; and we know why. It is because this legislation is so poor. It is just tinkering with old systems and there is nothing new in it. It is fiddling with old systems that are already struggling to cope with the requirements. There is nothing wrong with helping low-income families. National supports that view. We support the relief for low-income working families. However, the problem with this legislation is that it uses old frameworks that are already failing to deliver properly, and turns tens of thousands more people into beneficiaries, when there is no need to do that.

💬 Darren Hughes: No.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I refer that member to clause 6, which states that the definition of “income” in section 3(1) of the principal Act is amended by excluding any tax credit or amount received under certain provisions of the Income Tax Act 2004, the Income Tax 1994, and its predecessor. I ask Darren Hughes what that means. He would not have a clue. I will tell him what that means. It means that tax credits are now being treated as benefits, because clause 6 refers to section 3(1) of the Social Security Act, which I have right here. Section 3(1) defines income for benefit testing, from what I can work out. We will see that tax credits will no longer be treated as income.

This Parliament will regret 2004. There will be a time in future years when politicians of all persuasions will look back at this measure and ask why on earth our entire focus was on scrapping over the crumbs left on the plate, rather than on trying actually to grow the pie so that there could be reasonable distribution to all. That is the answer here. It is to do with economic growth. For most people out in radioland the words “economic growth” are words that spring off the tongues of politicians but do not mean much. I say to ordinary voters that it is to do with our ability to pay—that is, our ability actually to fund quality health-care, our ability to provide first-class education services.

This Government set a laudable aim when it first came in. It was going to return our gross domestic product (GDP) to being within the top half of the OECD. Again, for the ordinary punter “GDP” is just three letters, and sounds like it stands for the German Democratic Republic or something, but it is actually to do with our ability to pay. It is our wealth. GDP per capita is the wealth of individuals—we divide the value of the total economic pie by the number of people. In this Budget we see that growth in our ability to pay is forecast to increase at absolutely pathetic levels; it is forecast to be less over the next 10 years—this is Dr Cullen’s own Treasury’s forecast—than we have already experienced. That is a recipe for slipping even further behind. So we will be back here in 10 years, with people still not getting heart surgery or hip replacements, and with kids still not getting access to quality education and still fighting over student loans. Why? Because we will be slipping further and further down the tree.

I found that the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference had some exciting figures for us. It showed that our GDP per capita, which was once second in the world, has continued to slide, and—listen to this—we were passed 3 years ago by Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is now wealthier per person than us. Slovenia passed us last year. The forecast on the Standard and Poor’s McKenzie website suggests that Uruguay will pass us by 2010, which is about when some of these benefits come in. So what we are doing is sitting here and scrapping and arguing over how we redistribute some of the crumbs instead of over how the hell we grow the pie.

During this debate I have heard a few things from Dr Cullen that are a bit rich. He got up and started screaming on about whether the National Party would repeal this legislation. Well, “repeal” is not normally the solution for anything to do with income support; “replace” is normally the word. And, my word, I am happy to commit to replacing this legislation with stuff that works.

But let me get to the rich stuff from Dr Cullen. I have a list this long, which I am soon to publish, of the absolute promises from Labour as to what it would repeal when it got into office. I will give the absolute mother of all the repeals: the Maritime Transport Act. When that bill was going through this House Labour members sat here every night and said: “When we are in Government it will be gone—gone by lunchtime.” That is what they said, but for the 5 years they have been in Government they have not touched it—not a mutter, not a murmur, not a sausage. It was the same with the benefit cuts in 1991. When Ruth Richardson carried out what was a desperately needed measure because of economic mismanagement by the previous Labour Government, and actually did cut benefits, what did those members say? They said it was an outrage and a disgrace. They said it was just unacceptable and they would not tolerate it. When they were elected to Government in 1999, did they reinstate benefit levels back to where they were? No, they did not. Did they do it in 2000? No, they did not. Did they do it in 2001? No, they did not. I could not have more fun than this! So we do not want Dr Cullen shedding crocodile tears about whether we will repeal this measure, because, quite frankly, the public have had a gutsful of promises to repeal that have never come through.

If I ever want a touchstone, a measure of whether the National Party is on the right track, it is my old mate the Rev. Charles Waldegrave. If he thinks something is good, people had better look out, because there is a man who has got it wrong on every occasion in the past. I am proud to be opposing this bill, and I want the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell us why it has to be debated under urgency.

If I was inspired by any content of anybody’s speech yesterday, it was when Dr Cullen really let loose and said he earns $200,000 a year and is determined to give something back to the people who put him here. He was a poor lad from Edmonton, close to where I come from in the UK, but a little bit nearer Tottenham Hotspur than I was—I am not close to Tottenham Hotspur, at all! He said he wanted to give something back, and I thought that was an admirable sentiment. Then I looked at the bill and saw that he wants to give it back next year. We want to give it back this year, so on the Table there is an amendment in my name to clause 2 and other clauses that brings the date forward. If we are going to give something to families in this country, why wait a year? Let us give it to them now.

I take the point that Maurice Williamson made—and he made it very strongly—that this bill might not be the best way of doing it. But, right now, we would sooner see some money in the pockets of poor families in this country than in the “Treasurer’s” treasure chest. We do not want him to sit on a war chest at the expense of families in this country. There are families out there who have young children who are out on the streets selling their bodies for money. I would like to think that a little bit of compassion, a little bit of understanding, and a little bit of finance would solve, or at least ease, that problem. I do not want to wait until April next year. New Zealand First does not want to wait until then before things happen. That looks to me like a lolly-scramble, an election bribe—nothing more, nothing less.

The Greens will support our bringing the dates forward, ACT will support our bringing the dates forward, and I think National will support our bringing the dates forward—although National members oppose the bill, they can support our bringing the dates forward. So I ask the members of United Future what they will do. It will come down to the United Future members—who are not awake at the moment. If they come alongside and vote to bring forward the dates, then we can do business with Dr Cullen and Mr Maharey, and we can test their allegiance to families in this country. We can test whether they really mean to do something to help people, or are just having a lolly-scramble that will make them look good a month or so out from the next election.

I do not know whether the contents of this bill are sound. I would have preferred this bill to go through the process of select committee scrutiny. That is where the bill should have gone. I cannot see the point of our sitting here in urgency to pass a bill that does not take any meaningful effect until April next year. We could have done things properly and listened to submissions. So New Zealand First is prepared to say: “We will go with you, Labour. We will go with the Government. You might not have got it right—we have not found all that we are looking for—but we will go with you. But we want it delivered now.” We want the promises delivered now. We want the date of April next year changed to July this year. It can be done, and we want the outgoing years 2006 and 2007 changed to 2005 and 2006. That is the challenge. As soon as I finish this call, I am going to talk to the officials and find out the practicalities of that, but I cannot see, from reading this bill, any hindrance whatsoever to the Government’s bringing this measure in now.

I hope the United Future members subscribe to that view. Those members have been loud and clear. I heard Mr Dunne say loudly and clearly that the United Future members are fighting for families. Well, we want them to fight for achieving something now, not next year. He made a big noise saying that until United Future came on board no one had mentioned the word “family”. Well, we are saying that if this legislation is to have a good effect on families, it should be brought in now. There is a war chest of money there. Let us give some money back to the average New Zealanders out there who are suffering.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 1 of the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill. What an amazing night it was last night! The outcomes for families in this bill are certainly more substantial than any proposal I have heard to date from Opposition parties. In fact, I would challenge National members in particular, who are talking about replacing this legislation, to flesh it out for us and tell us with what they intend to replace it. Certainly, nothing they have spoken of previously would lead us to believe that families will be better off with anything they are proposing.

The gap has widened between benefit-derived incomes and work-derived incomes, and the moral mandate, alone, to address that gap is huge. The evidence is unmistakable, and my understanding and memory serves me to say that Muriel Newman from ACT has often brought to the attention of the House the fact that children in working families—statistically anyway—do better, on a whole range of measurable outcomes. Here now is the chance for families, previously disadvantaged through pursuing employment, to be on the winning team. The only conclusion I can come to is that the ACT party, and possibly its National Party friend, prefers sticks to carrots when it comes to encouraging families to take up the opportunity to work.

However, United Future does see some areas that need improving over time, and I will mention a couple of those. The first is the foster care allowance, which is still, even under this legislation, substantially better than the unsupported child allowance. For grandparents raising grandchildren, that is a real issue. Even the Children’s Commissioner has highlighted the concerns she has regarding grandparents, who are often on fixed superannuation incomes, having to deal with children who come into their care. We have to understand what the issues are for those families. By and large, they are raising traumatised children who have come out of extremely difficult situations. Therefore, it is often difficult for the grandparents to work; their hands are full in dealing with those children.

💬 Hon Member: Why wait 2 years?

They will not be helped even in 2 years’ time, because the grandparents have to be working grandparents to get the full benefit of what is on offer here. And the truth is that many of those grandparents give up work to put time into those children who are in a bad way. So in terms of future directions for this legislation, United Future would like to see some real improvements. We would like to see, of course, that those kinship caregivers are given the full foster-care status we believe they are due.

The other interesting area United Future still wants to champion, of course, is income splitting. What income splitting does, and what this bill does not do, is recognise the contribution of a parent at home. In fact, what the Government is saying, and what it was saying even prior to this legislation, is that it will supplement children through proxy childcare, but it will not specifically recognise parents who stay at home and do exactly the same job. United Future is concerned about that, and we think it is something that can be addressed in the future.

We are also concerned that this legislation lets employers who employ low and medium income workers off the hook a little bit, with regard to the improvement in the wages they pay. I would like to invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, to explain to us the new, rules-based approach to the new, temporary, additional support benefit. United Future understands that very low-income beneficiary families in particular have unexpected circumstances that crop up—the whiteware breaks down or a dental bill comes—and the income they receive does not stretch far enough for them to cover those kinds of eventualities. So we understand the need for an opportunity to jump in sometimes and help out. What we are not clear about, and what we would like the Minister to explain to us, is whether these new rules make any difference to the numbers of families with ongoing debt-management problems.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Sue Bradford.

💬 Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has been seeking the call. We had one call with the Hon Richard Prebble. We have sought the call while you have given three calls to National, two to New Zealand First, one to United Future, and now one to the Green Party. Is there a reason for that?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for her contribution. I look at the proportionality in the Chamber, and ACT is certainly within that consideration. At the moment the Green Party has not had one call, at all.

The Green Party is tabling an amendment to Part 1 of this bill, in which we seek to repeal clauses 12 and 23. To be realistic about things, we are not particularly hopeful of the chances of our amendment passing, but I am putting it forward because I think it is important to highlight the dangers in changing so substantially the special benefit regime, especially given the lack of opportunity for public consultation. With this bill being rushed through the House under urgency, all the people and groups who would normally have had plenty of time to make considered submissions on changes to the Social Security Act and to the taxation laws are being denied that chance, and probably in most cases they are simply unaware of the detail of the reforms that are being made in these clauses. The Green Party amendment that I am putting before the Committee in effect reverses the part of the bill that repeals section 61G of the Social Security Act and sets up a new system called temporary additional support. The impact of what the Government is doing here is to remove statutory discretion for the payment of the special benefit. Its replacement, called temporary additional support, is likely to subject a small, but very vulnerable, number of beneficiaries to greater poverty than is currently experienced by anyone.

To give just one example of how that could work in future, I will take the situation of a single invalids beneficiary with very high disability costs. The person, who lives rurally, has to travel significant distances twice weekly at a cost of, say, $200 per week for the treatment of a chronic medical condition, because that treatment is available only at the nearest city. On current rates, the disability allowance to cover the costs of travel for the treatment is capped at just over $48 a week. The proposed cap on the temporary additional support at 30 percent of the main benefit rate would result in maximum temporary additional support, at the current invalids benefit rate, of $61.55 a week. Any disability-related costs above $109 per week would have to be met out of the person’s invalids benefit itself. In this example those costs would amount to $90.27, leaving the beneficiary with only $114.91 a week to meet everyday living expenses. By contrast, under the current special benefit regime, although there is a guideline cap of 30 percent of the allowable costs, there is still discretion for departmental staff to exceed that if the beneficiary’s individual circumstances justify it. A special benefit of $152 would be likely to be paid in respect of the disability-related travel costs of the beneficiary I have just described.

In effect what we will see is a big benefit cut for some people—an unknown number of individuals and families—who in the future will find themselves in all sorts of difficult situations beyond their control. I am not sure whether the Government is clear about the impact of what it is doing here. While, of course, we applaud Labour’s moves to improve income support levels for families, we are disturbed that these major changes to the special benefit regime are being slipped in within the context of what is mainly a beneficial piece of legislation—and under urgency, to boot.

We acknowledge, of course, the many difficulties there have been with the administration of the special benefit. Globally, we do not support third-tier benefits and would like to see a much simpler benefit system in this country, but while we continue to work with the fractured mosaic of the Social Security Act and all its amendments we need to do the best we can, and we wonder whether Labour actually intended to implement this benefit cut. I would welcome a response from the Government on that. We know there have been a lot of problems. Many people are not getting the special benefit they are entitled to at the moment, and people are treated very differently depending on the part of the country they live in. But we also know there has been a long and an arduous consultation process between the beneficiary advocacy groups and the Ministry of Social Development. I do not know whether those groups are aware of what is being implemented here today. I call on parties like New Zealand First and United Future, and possibly even Labour if it has not understood what it is doing here, to support my amendment.

On a final note, I would like to say that the Green Party will be supporting Peter Brown’s amendments to bring the dates of implementation of this bill forward, because we too would like to see as much as possible of the additional resources going into families now, or as soon as possible, rather than waiting to see the implementation of the legislation dragged out over the next 4 years.

I am looking forward to hearing from Deborah Coddington, but as I think we have gone through about 10 speakers from various parties it is important for me to begin to respond to some of what they have said. We began, after Michael Cullen’s speech, with Katherine Rich, who, in an almost ”Pythonesque” way, continues to rise in the Chamber to ask what is in this Budget for working families. If one has ever seen the Life of Brian one will remember the wonderfully comic scene that always come to mind whenever Katherine rises in the Chamber—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot refer to single names. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7.

—to ask what is in the bill. All I can say in response is this: apart from the accommodation supplement, childcare subsidy, out-of-school care rates, family support, and in-work payment, what is in this Budget for the working family? “All right”, Katherine Rich would probably say, “what is in this Budget apart from accommodation supplements, in-work payments, family support, and out-of-school childcare for the ordinary working family?” Well, I have to say there is even more: there is the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit. Katherine Rich would probably then say: “All right, apart from all those things, what is in this Budget for the working family?”. It all adds up to an average of about $66 for families earning between $25,000 and $45,000. That will go right up for that Waihi family, although a member of that family will probably be standing for ACT at the next election. He or she may stand against us, but even that family is about to have $150 coming into its household. So I would say to Katherine Rich that there is a lot in this Budget for those families.

Mr Gerry Brownlee, representing the National Party’s sudden concern for low-income families, came into the Chamber and asked us how dreadful and how awful things could get. The New Zealand Herald has a headline that states this Budget is ‘One for the kids’, so Gerry Brownlee asked how awful things could get. If Katherine Rich is “Pythonesque”, Gerry Brownlee is the Goon Show! It becomes incredible when we have National Party members come to the Chamber and say they would hate to have that headline about a future National Government’s Budget. I just ask every National Party spokesperson to please stand up and hold that headline against his or her head as he or she says that, because we would love the cameras to come in and film them while they repeat the New Zealand Herald headline. I thank Gerry Brownlee for pointing that out.

Richard Prebble asked why we are not sending this bill to a select committee. Also, to leap forward to Dr Lockwood Smith’s contribution, as I think we could call it, he asked the same question. I will tell members why we are not doing so. We have to introduce rules and processes by 1 October in order to ensure we can begin to dispense money to people through the new changes. I have to have legislation through so that I can do that. That is the reason the money will be able to be distributed.

💬 Deborah Coddington: Whose money is it?

It is New Zealanders’ money. They pay taxes and they ask their Government to use that money wisely, and we are doing just that.

Mr David Carter asked why we do not have taxation cuts. He asked why we could not have a taxation cut across the board so all the hard-working, well-off people could get more than the people who are hard-working but on a low income. He asked why we could not, in National’s terms, give 19c a week to low-income New Zealanders and $400 or $500 to Don Brash. I suppose, once again, we are happy to go to the people of New Zealand at the election, whenever that may be, and say that is the choice, and they, as an average New Zealand household, can either have 19c from a taxation cut by the ACT-National coalition if it were in power, or up to $160 from this coalition. I am happy to campaign on that, so I hope Mr David Carter will carry on arguing for that.

I thought Mr Catchpole gave a very good speech, looking at how the different parts of this Budget would help education and business—all the practical things the Budget is intended to do. It was a good speech. I have not heard New Zealand First members getting up and speaking uncritically. They have asked us to bring the implementation dates forward, and I put it on the record that we cannot do that because this is a Budget, and the Budget allocates money in a time frame. Therefore, we cannot have the money come forward. What we cannot do at the moment is to bring the dates forward in the way the member would like. I will skip over Dr Lockwood Smith, because I have already mentioned his point. In relation to the Hon Maurice Williamson, all I can say is that he has to let it go—the maritime legislation has been passed. It was passed a long time ago, and he has to stop grieving. After a while he has to stop grieving and move on. If the Prime Minister were here, she would say, in a counselling kind of way: “Move on, Mr Maurice Williamson, you cannot keep grieving forever.” Mr Peter Brown, once again, made an excellent speech. It was largely about the implementation times, and I have dealt with that. Judy Turner is always incisive about what is going on here in the Chamber. She is not uncritical of this bill. Members from those parties have always said they support this measure, but they have something they would like to add to it. Sue Bradford has just done exactly that, and I want to touch on the point she has made about temporary supplementary assistance, which replaces special benefits.

The issue regarding the replacement of the special benefit is very simple. When we came into office a very small group of people was getting access to the special benefit. There were people who should have been getting it, but the National Party had been too mean to give it to them, so we began to ensure they could receive it. All that meant was more and more people had to migrate into the third tier, so they could get the income they should have been getting. We are paying about $63 million in special benefits at the present time, and we are looking at forecasts of paying $70 million or $80 million. That is not the way to run a benefit system. People should not have to come up to the third tier to get their money from there. We are essentially moving all that money forward, and saying that we want to return to the essential purpose of the special benefit, which is to be temporary assistance when people are genuinely in hardship. As Bob Stephens said today at the Child Poverty Action Group breakfast, this is a good move because it means paying money upfront. People should not now need to apply for those special benefits. Therefore, we can return to the original purpose of that benefit, which was temporary assistance when genuine hardship was being felt. I think that is a good move. We will see how we go, but I think one can tell, from the point of view of the Greens, who are concerned about people getting their entitlements, that we are being serious. We have moved from paying about $7 million in special benefits to about $63 million now, and the figure is growing. We are trying to move all that money forward, and to pay it to people earlier.

I am about to sit down so that people can rip into this debate again, but I do want to hear from the National Party and the ACT party about what they will do on 1 October this year, when we allow changes to the accommodation supplement that will put more money into people’s pockets. I want to know whether the press releases from Deborah Coddington and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith are ready. When those changes come in on 1 October this year will those members be putting out a press release to voters, stating that they would not give them the money? On 4 October, when the childcare subsidy and the out-of-school care rates change, which will put about $23 a week into households with children, will the press releases be ready to go, stating those members would not give that $23 a week to those people on 4 October? What about the changes to invalids benefits rules this year? The National Party says it wants to move those people off benefits and into work, but it never says how it would do that, apart from threatening to cut their benefits or to reassess them, or whatever. When a positive move for getting more money for the invalids benefit is introduced in December this year, will the National Party have press releases ready, stating it would not give those beneficiaries more money? On 1 April next year, when 260,000 families receive a $25 increase in their family support, will the National Party have press releases ready to go, stating that no, it would not allow those families to get $25 a week more or $15 a week more for each child? That is what I want to hear about from the National Party and ACT spokespeople. Will the press releases be ready in October, in December, and on 1 April next year, when a bulk of money will go into those households? Let us hear whether those parties are ready to go and say that no, New Zealanders will not get that money.

The Hon Steve Maharey said it all when he kept going on and on about press releases, because that is what this bill is all about. It is all about public relations. He is obsessed with public relations. If what he says is so great, why wait until 1 October or 1 April to bring it in? Why not do it now? That is why, as Richard Prebble said, we will be supporting Peter Brown’s amendment.

It is outrageous that this bill is not going to a select committee, as several members have already pointed out. We all know why the bill will not go to a select committee. It is because the Government is scared of the submissions that would come in. This is the ultimate in redistribution of wealth. Labour has finally, once and for all, abandoned the worker. It has abandoned all pretence of supporting the worker. One of Labour’s supporters, Chris Trotter, even said that himself yesterday on television. He is no supporter of the ACT party, but he damned this Budget because there is nothing in it for working people. It will take working people into welfare.

This Government, and several other parties, have said how this bill will support families. This bill will do nothing for families. Welfare in this country has destroyed families. It is absolutely destroying families. Anybody who is concerned about families in this country would get tough on welfare. The only person who had the fortitude to be tough on welfare was Ruth Richardson in her Budget.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Are you proud of that?

The member should do the research. I am not proud of this country’s appalling rate of teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions. What happened when Ruth Richardson cut the benefit? Those rates all went down. Read the research. If we give people incentives to have babies, they will have them. As P J O’Rourke said: “If I can’t be part of the fun in making these babies, why should I pay for them?”.

This bill will punish those who work hard. Dr Cullen is destroying this country. Why should we take from those who have, just because they have it? What sort of message does that send to everyone out there? Giving 300,000 households more money to spend will make Dr Cullen and the Hon Steve Maharey feel great, but it will come at a huge cost to this country. Brian Fallow, in this morning’s New Zealand Herald had it right. He said that New Zealand now, and for the last few years, has been trying to live a First World lifestyle on Third World incomes. What have we done? We have just given ourselves a huge pay rise. The country is going to go down. There will not be growth.

The Hon Steve Maharey asked us whether, if ACT were in power on 1 October, it would say it would take the money back from people. The ACT party will not ever have to say that because it would not take the money off them in the first place. Whose money is it? Why should people not have the right to keep their own money and spend it how they see fit, instead of having a nanny State, bossyboots Government tax workers into oblivion? The New Zealand First Party said it would get people into work. Where? Where will the jobs be? What businesses will make jobs available, when they have to cope with all this other legislation that is strangling them and driving them across the Tasman in droves?

The new employment relations legislation and the Holidays Act that came in are the obstacles to job growth. They are the things that, in conjunction with a bill like this, keep people in welfare. Keeping people dependent on the State is one of the worst things we can ever do to them. It is the worst thing anyone can ever do to anyone, and this Government is doing it. The only incentive for families to do any better is to go from work to welfare.

Dr Cullen talked about a surplus. A surplus used to mean a genuine mistake by the Government in taking more tax than it spent—what is not required for the purpose in hand. A surplus now means a calculated scheme of money collection, for redistribution in election year. Those are not my words. Those are words from a document that came out this morning from the Maxim Institute. These are real issues. The institute bases its opinions on sound values, supported by United Future, and supported by New Zealand First, too.

This debate today, on the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill, really demonstrates the difference between socialism and capitalism.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: It does.

Absolutely! Steve Maharey was my sociology lecturer at Massey University. We used to call him “The Marxist Man from Massey”. He was known everywhere as that. He has now entered Parliament, to put into practice his Marxist philosophy and principles. We see that in this Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill. Rather than leaving money in the pockets of individuals, rather than leaving it in the pockets of families, to allow them to have freedom, to have choice, to decide how they want to spend their money, this Government overtaxes and puts the money into Treasury, and then the Government decides how it will hand it back to certain people. That gives the Government a huge amount of State control, to determine how it will hand it back.

New section 61GA, inserted by clause 13, relates to childcare assistance. Of course, it is available only if parents use State sector providers. They cannot use the private sector. This Government will not let the private sector be involved in health or education, because of ideology. It is not because the private sector does not work as well. In many cases, it works a whole lot better. There are efficiencies that are driven, because private sector providers have to be absolutely responsible to the people who are buying the service from them, and that is the driver for much better quality. This Government, being socialist to the core, wants to determine how the individual, the family, can spend their own money. The Government will tell those people; it will not give them choice and freedom.

New section 44A, inserted by clause 7, relates to the invalids benefit. I have to say that I agree with the trial period of employment. I think that a lot of people, especially in the mental health area, become very unwell. As they recover it is very difficult for them to go back into full-time employment. Having a trial period of employment is a very good thing to be able to help people back on the road to recovery. But if we look at mental health and at what this Government is doing in the Budget, it is just continuing to put in the blueprint money that has always been there. Rather than having better systems that treat more people, we see that in Auckland 1.7 percent of the population used to be treated, and now it is down to 1.6 percent. Despite more money, fewer people are being treated and in a less timely fashion. We have quite a crisis in mental health services, due to the delivery of that care.

Clause 8 covers an increase in the funeral grant. Yesterday, I attended the funeral of a friend. She is the second friend of my age to die of breast cancer in the last 2 months. It was an extremely sad occasion. Both my friends developed breast cancer in their early 40s, and I would very much like to see the age for free breast-screening reduced to 40. That may have done something positive for this mum of two children, because I say that this Budget will not do anything for them. It will not give them any money, whatsoever.

💬 Jill Pettis: Tell the whole story. National never trained anybody. [Interruption] Just 16 people a year. We can’t possibly keep up, if we train only 16 people a year.

The chief Government whip harangues me, and screams and shouts across the Chamber. But who set up the breast-screening programme? It was the National Government that set it up. I suggest that Ms Pettis takes a call, because her screaming across the Chamber is just annoying everybody.

This Budget is totally about wealth redistribution, not wealth creation. Let us look at the money spent on health in the OECD, and take a look at Ireland. Ireland was spending a very low amount on health, but the amount has increased in the last few years because of its OECD growth—because growth in that economy is increasing. National will talk about this a great deal. If the salaries coming into those families—which will be getting a measly $15 or $20 extra a week from this bill—went up by that amount, they would be far better off. If this economy was growing, if salaries were increasing, then they would be better off.

There has been a lot of talk about whether this bill is about giving money to beneficiaries, with the ACT party often saying this is about robbing Peter to pay Paul. I would like us to look at some statistics with regard to beneficiaries, because that has also been a topic of great discussion. If we go back to 1999 when National was in Government and look at how many beneficiaries we had, and then see what is happening today with domestic purposes beneficiaries, in 1999 we had 110,067, and in 2004 we have 108,851.

💬 Judith Collins: What about invalids?

We will come to that in a moment. So there has been a reduction in domestic purposes beneficiaries of 1 percent, despite ACT claiming about 18 months ago that we supported the Government in assisting some people on that benefit to hold on to more of their income when they did go out to work and that this was going to result in a huge increase of numbers on the domestic purposes benefit. That has not happened; we have reduced it by 1 percent.

The number of unemployment beneficiaries has reduced by 48 percent since 1999. The number of sickness beneficiaries has increased by 28 percent. That is a concern to us. The number of invalids beneficiaries has increased by 39 percent.

💬 Opposition Members: Ah!

Before members opposite crow too much, we need to note that the net result, since 1999, is that the number of beneficiaries has reduced by 14 percent. So the Government must be doing something that is working, and working for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is too easy for the Opposition to suggest that numbers have decreased because people have switched benefit, because there has been a reduction overall of 14 percent. I do not see anything in this Budget that will lead to a blowout in the number of beneficiaries.

With regard to the domestic purposes benefit, I welcome the initiatives in the Budget that will enable these hard-working single mothers and fathers to be able to hold on to more of the money they earn when they go out to work, because it has always been ridiculous that, on one side of the Chamber, people say that we need to get those people out into “real” work, as though the only real work is paid employment, when we know they are working very hard raising their children. My mother did when she raised six children, all on her own. She worked very hard, and she still got on her bike, at 6.30 in the morning, and went to clean the annexe at the public hospital.

It is ridiculous that we take money off those people when they go out to work so they end up working for some miserable hourly rate, like $4 or $5. I welcome the fact that the Budget adjusts that situation. I believe it provides a greater incentive for more domestic purposes beneficiaries to find paid employment, but not at the risk of neglecting their children, who need to have time with that single parent. I speak out positively in support of that part of the Budget, and completely refute ACT’s claims that somehow this will lead to a huge blowout in the numbers because people will have more children just so they can live off the State. That is a ridiculous argument.

Deborah Coddington said that the benefit cuts in 1991 resulted in a reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies, and so on, and that this Budget would result in a huge increase. That is ridiculous, too. I would like to partner with Deborah Coddington, if she wishes, in attacking the Family Planning Association for the ridiculous sex education it provides in our schools, and join her in upholding a standard that adults might live by in this country so that our young people would have a better role model in the way they conduct themselves. That would be a worthwhile cause, but to blame this Budget for what might happen in the future in terms of more teenage pregnancies, more sexually transmitted diseases, and so on, is absolutely ridiculous.

United Future will not be supporting New Zealand First’s amendment to change the commencement dates. If I seek to take another call on this matter, I hope the Chair will acknowledge me, so I can finish this discussion and give New Zealand First a good understanding of why we will not be supporting the amendment. When Peter Brown was speaking about the amendment he asked why the provisions could not all be brought in now. That is a huge worry, if we think about it. New Zealand First was saying yesterday that it would be forming part of the next Government, but Peter Brown does not seem to understand that one cannot come into the Chamber this morning with an amendment that disregards all the Treasury projections, all the budgetary projections, and just say that we should pay it all out now.

Approximately 18 to 20 months ago I had the honour and privilege of attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Namibia. As I observed the lifestyle of the people, I could not help but notice the bars on all the residential buildings. I noticed the difference in lifestyle between the people who lived there. They have the rich and the very poor. In fact we were warned not to walk around in the streets, because of the threat of being knocked about a bit and robbed. We had the privilege of visiting the very poor areas, and we saw people selling, to make a living, the sort of rubbish that we would throw in the rubbish dump. We did not venture into the very poorest areas, because of a possible threat to our safety.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s right.

Mr Mapp vouches for that. We visited some of the rehabilitation areas provided for people who have come out of prison. We saw them making an effort to grow vegetables in the dust, in an irrigation system that they had created. In this debate I have listened to the figures and percentages, and the toing and froing about why we should or should not help people. I say the No. 1 reason we are in Parliament is to assist people. I have heard the question asked in this Chamber this very day as to why the very rich should give to those who have nothing. Some have asked why the well-off should give to those who have nothing. I want to quote from the book His Way: A Biography of Robert Muldoon: “Muldoon could not bring himself to vote with the Labour Opposition against National welfare cuts in November 1991, but his expression showed his feelings and he abstained from voting.”

Former Governments have put some citizens of this country in a situation where we need to have a Budget like this to try to get them back on their feet. New Zealand First supports this bill, firstly, because it will help to assist these people, regardless of their situation. Maybe they are there through no fault of their own or anybody else’s, but they are citizens of this nation. Sir Apirana Ngata, in the 1930s, said the social welfare system would be the downfall of many. Who created that system? The policies put in place created this situation. Now we have a Budget that has seen the light and is trying to sort this out.

Maybe amendments will be needed, but the effort has been made to assist people to get on their feet, so they can become independent of the State. This Budget, with some fine-tuning, will begin to fulfil the aspirations of every individual in this nation. Not only do we need to get people off benefits but also we need to look at the other assets in the way of education, health, and, especially, law and order. This society will never be a balanced society if we cut off those people who are struggling. So it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to assist people all we can to become independent of the State.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: This makes thousands more dependent.

It does not make thousands more dependent. Why did a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, not support National in trying to cut the welfare system?

This Budget can properly be described as half a Budget. It is all about redistribution; there is nothing about growth. And Mr Maharey knows that. One of the extraordinary things in this Budget is that even after what purports to be a distribution, there is a surplus of $5.5 billion. The Dominion Post got that right when it said to the Government that it was overachieving with the surplus, so to make less effort, please. What did it say about the other issue of tax cuts? That it was not astrophysics— “stubbornly refuses to attend class, and throws rocks at those who do.”

Yesterday we heard the Minister rave on—because that is what he did, giving a lecture to business as to why there should not be a tax cut and why corporate taxes in New Zealand had to be the highest in the Asia-Pacific region. That is why this Budget is anti-growth. It is all about redistribution. It is anti-growth, and that is why it is half a Budget.

Let us think of the alternatives. I think that everyone would acknowledge there needs to be a surplus, but does it have to be $5.5 billion? The answer is: absolutely not. Let us, for instance, say that $4 billion might have been a reasonable target. That is, another $1.5 billion could have been returned to New Zealanders. A corporate tax cut would have cost $450 million, which still leaves $1 billion available for a tax cut across the board, even when every part of this Budget is delivered. Every part of it could have been delivered, plus a tax cut to every taxpayer in New Zealand, plus a tax cut for corporate entities. It is extraordinary, is it not, when that opportunity was there and a $4 billion surplus could still have been delivered, that that opportunity would be turned down. So that is why we on this side of the House say this Budget is anti-growth and only half a Budget.

We also say that it ignores real needs; when the opportunity is there to make a redistribution, that is the sign of failure. New Zealand First has put forward a proposal to bring the family package forward by 1 year. National will support that.

It is extraordinary, is it not, that members of the party that is the lapdog to the Government, day in, day out, have got up in this House and said: “Oh, no, we couldn’t do anything so reckless as that.” Let me tell Mr Baldock that there is a $5.5 billion surplus, and it does not take rocket science to work out that voting for an earlier package is doable. On top of that, there could even be a tax cut for every New Zealander. Every single New Zealander could have benefited.

Now, it disturbs the Minister in the chair, Mr Maharey, to know—[Interruption]—apparently he did not know; he had not been told by the Minister of Finance—that a $4 billion surplus was in fact doable. That would have been a responsible surplus; it would have enabled business to get ahead. I guess there could have been a headline that did not just say that kids benefited but that said kids, business, and New Zealand benefited. That would have been a better headline, but the Government refused that opportunity. So that is why National will be voting against the Government’s bill today. It represents only a half-pie job.

This is surely a situation of missed opportunities. At a time when New Zealand is actually doing well—which is not due to the Government but to external conditions—we could have really given it an extra boost, and businesses could have had real benefit. There could have been a real reduction so that we were competitive with Australia instead of having to have the carping lecture we had from the Minister of Finance yesterday as to why it could not be done. Well, his own figures tell him his words were a lie. It could have been done, it could have boosted growth, but that was the opportunity the Government messed up.

We are not talking here about hard things to do. Those things were easy because there is a $5.5 billion surplus, not only for this period just gone by but for the future. It is that kind of missed opportunity that is so lamentable, and that is why this Budget will go down as a lost opportunity, as anti-growth, and as only half a Budget. Frankly, it deserves at best a C grade; there was an opportunity for an A grade.

If there were ever a debate in this Parliament that defined what Tories stood for and meant, and what the Labour Party stood for, then this is it. What drives me more than anything in Parliament to be in the Labour Party is the difference in approach to what we call hard-working New Zealanders, and the difference in the way that a Government appreciates and deals with them; because a bunch of Tories, a bunch of mean-spirited, over-privileged Tories, think that the only way to get people producing and working harder—if they are rich—is to provide them with tax incentives; if people are poor or struggling, it is to drive them with a stick—to threaten them with unemployment, and to tell them they have to accept $8 or $10 an hour, otherwise they will lose their jobs. Tories think that the only way to get more productivity from the top—to get people who own businesses to do more, or people who get big salaries to do more—is to give tax breaks and offer people more money and more security.

Well, this Budget is about giving hard-working Kiwis, who struggle on $10 an hour, and who are trying to bring up families on $40,000 or $50,000 a year, some extra assistance. The Tories in the National Party will give to their privileged mates, time and time again, while they will ignore others. And they will not just ignore them. It is important this country knows that if that bunch of Tories ever gets back into Government they, like their mate Jenny Shipley and like their mate Ruth Richardson who is now running the ACT party, will drive down and cut benefits for good, hard-working New Zealanders.

I tell Mr Tisch, Mr Lockwood Smith, and Mr Mapp that people work hard at every tier of income in this country. In fact, I put to Mr Mapp, although he would not know it, that the less people’s income, the harder they have to work to stay alive, the harder they have to work to bring up their kids in the way they want to, and the harder they have to work to keep their families together and build a future in this country. So the good, hard-working Kiwis he tries to bribe with tax cuts will not be looked after by the Tories. They will not look after people on low incomes or people who need the support of the State. We are looking after them, through this Budget, and there are so many ways we are doing it, acknowledged by the New Zealand Herald this morning—thankfully. Finally, that paper has seen that we are looking after kids and hard-working New Zealanders. While we may not have provided the incentives National would have—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: You could have done both.

We have not done that. If Mr Mapp understood economics, he would know that the money we give to good, hard-working low and middle income New Zealanders will go back into the economy so that people in business will have an opportunity, if they are providing a good, fair service and a good product, to get access to that money. That will drive growth; that will drive opportunity; that will drive regional development.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: You could have done better.

Oh, “Could have done better.”, he says! We do not claim to be a perfect Government, but we know where we have to start to provide the benefits. We know who we have to support in this country, and it is not the privileged few that the ACT party as a bunch of Tories will support now and into the future. Anyone listening to this debate knows where that party stands and what it stands for. They know where ACT stands and what it stands for, and that is not looking after, considering, and caring for those hard-working families who deserve a break. We are giving them a break.

The Dominion Post this morning features a couple—Phil and Carol Andrews—who are likely Labour and Green supporters. They were approached and asked how they felt about the Government’s announced election bribe. Mr Andrews said: “I would have been happier if they had done it with tax breaks rather than benefits. No one likes being a beneficiary.” That is why we are standing here today. That is the distinction between National and Labour, which has low aspirations for our New Zealand people. Hard-working New Zealanders want a tax break. They aspire to stand on their own two feet. But what Labour is telling New Zealanders in this Budget that was very, very well labelled as “half-pie” by my learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp is: “Don’t worry. Labour will take it from you and lock you into a life of being a beneficiary.”, rather than assisting them to stand up and work their way by growing the economy.

Why should even those 300,000 families be grateful? How did the Government ever get this surplus? How did the Government get this money? They taxed people. It was never “money man” Dr Michael Cullen’s money; it is hard-working New Zealanders’ money. Labour took it away and now thinks that people should thank them for it. I think it is an outrage that Labour is wasting Parliament’s time by keeping us here debating a bill that has no urgency. The only justification today for urgency is for Labour to support the New Zealand First amendment.

United Future, the party that is for family, should stand up this morning and say yes, it will go all the way for hard-working families and support the New Zealand First amendment to justify the reason why we are meeting here today in urgency.

I have not heard a passionate speech made by the Minister about why Labour would not support the amendment put up by New Zealand First. If the Hon Steve Maharey, as I understood, has been battling with his Cabinet colleagues for a universal benefit structure, why can he not this morning stand up and give us a good reason, particularly to the 300,000 families who are supposed to benefit from this package, why it cannot be put in place now? I also want to challenge the Minister to stand up and answer some specific questions.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Why does he think a $5.5 billion surplus is necessary?

That is a good question. No. 1: why does the Minister for Social Development and Employment think a $5.5 billion surplus is necessary? I also want the Minister to explain what guarantee he will give to the public that the new benefit that he introduced—the temporary additional support—will not fall into the same category as the emergency unemployment benefit. There are people in New Zealand who have been on the emergency unemployment benefit for 19 years. So I would like the Minister to stand up and tell us whether there is a definition of “temporary additional support”. How temporary is it? Would it run to 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, or life?

I move, That the question be now put.

Before we proceed, I have received a certificate under Standing Order 313 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in the Committee of the whole House. Under Standing Order 313, the Government does not concur with the following amendments being proposed: amendments moved by the honourable member Peter Brown to clause 4(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5); and amendments moved by the honourable member Sue Bradford to clauses 12 and 23, and schedule 3. I should mention, just in case members are wondering, that these are veto certificates that have vetoed the amendments because of the financial implications that they have.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note that you have ruled out of order the amendment by New Zealand First to clause 4(3). I also note that the Minister has put in an amendment on that same clause. Are you suggesting that New Zealand First’s amendments are out of order because of the veto, yet you are prepared to accept the Minister’s amendment that came in just about 20 minutes ago, which covers exactly the same subclause that New Zealand First was trying to amend? I do not see how you can throw New Zealand First’s amendment out and accept the Minister’s one on the same subject.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that the Government has vetoed these particular amendments because of the consequential effects they would have on the Budget.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister’s amendment is to clause 4 and states: “to omit from subclause (3) the expression ‘1 December 2004’ and substitute the expression ‘1 July 2004’ ”. New Zealand First’s amendment has exactly the same intent, so how can you rule out New Zealand First’s amendment on that subject because of a veto, when the Minister’s one will be accepted?

Mr Tisch raised—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is this a new point of order, because we are dealing with one at the moment from the honourable member Lindsay Tisch? Does the member want to speak to this point of order?

I want to speak to the same point of order, and suggest, on behalf of my colleague, that we would very strongly urge the Government to consider exactly its use of the veto, when its changes are in the same section. We believe this is something that needs to be looked at with greater care.

Speaking to the point of order—because I know that the New Zealand First members want to know exactly what is going on with their change—I point out that the legal advice from officials is that we needed to veto the clause, so all their amendments have been vetoed. But because we want to support what they are doing, we have simply put one in so that we can advance what they have asked for. It is the legal advice that has led to this, but we will advance what they are asking for.

That is just a load of rubbish. Parliament itself determines how it receives information from Ministers relating to bills. If the legal advice is that the New Zealand First amendment is out of order, and should therefore be vetoed, it seems to me that it is only consistent if the Government’s own amendment—which is exactly the same—should also be vetoed.

I do not believe that the veto power given to a Minister and to the Government is there for the exercise of political preference. It is there to protect the Government against the excesses of changes to Budgets. Therefore, I think it would be quite unfair and unparliamentary for the Chair to accept that Mr Brown’s amendment can be vetoed by the Government, but the Government itself can propose exactly the same arrangement and have it allowed. That is a Minister manipulating Parliament for political preferment, and I am not sure it would be a good thing for that to happen. While I welcome your comments on this, I would like to reserve our position until we get a ruling on this matter from the Speaker.

I note that Standing Order 301(2)(a) states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of the bill is taken ahead of an amendment proposed by another member, …” occurring at the same place in the bill. I would have thought that in this case, the Minister’s amendment would be put first. That would then rule out New Zealand First’s amendment, because the amendments say exactly the same thing, and then there would have been no need to put New Zealand First’s amendment.

What I have difficulty with—as I have stated before, and as my colleague Gerry Brownlee has also indicated—is that if you are using the reasoning of Standing Order 313 because it is a financial veto, I cannot see how you can say New Zealand First’s amendments are ruled out because of the financial veto, but then accept the Minister’s amendment, which says exactly the same thing. It is a contradiction. I believe you should have looked at Standing Order 301 first and used that as the reason for not accepting New Zealand First’s amendments, and in particular the amendment to clause 4(3).

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Tisch for the very considered summation he has made, and I appreciate that. I think a valid point was made. However, the Government veto applies to Mr Brown’s amendments as a whole and, as a result, the certificates are taken as a whole.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek some advice from the Chair. I have been calling for a speech on Part 1 of this bill for an hour and a half and, indeed, I called a point of order to alert the Chair to that effect before the vote was called. This bill is being heard under urgency, which means it will not be subject to the normal select committee scrutiny that a bill should be subject to. It is a very important bill, and I would like to know what a member has to do to get the call. I did have points to raise in Part 1 of the bill that have not been heard previously. Is it not reasonable that if somebody is seeking the call for over an hour and a half that that member is in fact called?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that the closure has been taken. I appreciate the point she has made. I did look at proportionality across Parliament, and that was the reason the closure motion was accepted. The Committee proportionality applies principally to fixed-time debates, if the member would like to look at Speaker’s ruling 59/2.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to allow the Minister to explain why the amendment I put forward has received a fiscal veto.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The problem is that we are already in the voting stage of the bill, and under Speakers’ rulings 1/5 and 1/6, the member is unable to seek leave on behalf of someone else.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (3) the words “1 December 2004” and substitute the words “1 July 2004”.