Brown Peter: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13430] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In case there is anybody out there listening I just say that Parliament is debating the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill. There might be someone listening. One never knows. It is Budget day so people could well be sitting there listening. This is a bill— 
Hon Annette King 
: The last one just turned off. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now now; the Minister could be a little bit kinder than that. It is Budget day. I inform listeners that this bill has just been presented to the House and nobody on the Opposition side of the House has had a chance to read it in any in-depth manner. We have just quickly gone through it. I inform people out there that the general policy statement in the explanatory note states: “The Bill’s main objectives are to—make work pay for parents who move off benefits into work:”. That is a commendable aim an absolutely commendable aim. It goes on to state in the next bullet point: “increase family income to significantly address issues of income adequacy:”. That is beyond question a commendable aim. The next bullet point states: “address accommodation affordability by responding to the increased cost of housing:”. That is another commendable aim. Those are three commendable aims. Then it states: “make childcare assistance an integral part of the social security system in recognition of its importance to many families:”. That is four commendable aims. And the fifth aim is to “take steps to simplify the social security system.” There are five commendable aims. 
How can New Zealand First vote against five commendable aims? Well we cannot; we will support this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] But I will tell members over there on the Government benches before they get too overjoyed that this is a lousy way to do politics or to play politics. We sat in this House on Monday and we all said nice things about the House and how important Parliament is to ourselves and to the country but to present a bill that the Opposition has to read and learn about in 10 seconds flat is to treat Parliament with contempt. That is not a fair go. This bill does not need to go through in such haste or in urgency. It is a “Treat Parliament with Contempt Bill”. 
It is a guilty bill because the Treasurer over there—or does he call himself the Minister of Finance or Treasurer or both or everything; he is “Minister of Everything”—has so much money that he does not know what to do with it. He has to give some away. Actually I think on reading this bill that he is giving it to the right people which is why New Zealand First will support it. We do not believe that the Minister of Finance should sit on piles and piles of dollars—billions and billions of dollars—through applying some sort of ideology. We support some of that money going into the pockets of New Zealanders and this bill does that. 
But have we got it right? Has the Government got it right? So many bills go through in a fast-track sort of way with little or no consultation or scrutiny by Parliament that I almost guarantee there is a major muck-up in this bill. But in the few moments I have had to read it and digest it I cannot find it. 
So we will support the first reading of the bill and will go through it clause by clause I hope when we come to the Committee stage. But I say to New Zealanders out there particularly to family New Zealanders—and New Zealand First does know what a family is unlike some people on the other side of the House— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They have an academic knowledge. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh they have an academic knowledge yes. But we actually know what a family is and how important families are to New Zealand— 
Hon Annette King 
: They studied for it. 
PETER BROWN 
: They have a degree in it have they? This is getting me worried. I hope this money is going to the right people. New Zealand First would have appreciated more time to be able to digest this bill and what it is all about but we recognise that the five aims are all worthwhile. 
Hon Annette King 
: Read them out again. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will read them out again for the Minister: to “make work pay for the parents who move off benefits into work:”—a good aim—and to “increase family income to significantly address issues of income adequacy:”. That is an excellent aim. To “address accommodation affordability by responding to the increased cost of housing:” sounds like a good aim. [ 
Interruption 
] No let them enjoy the moment because I have the feeling—[ 
Interruption 
] Three fingers eh? 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Yes three! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member has five “fingers” here. To “make childcare assistance an integral part of the social security system in recognition of its importance to many families:” is a good aim as is to “take steps to simplify the social security system.” That is a good aim. But it is the Government’s process that we object to. We think that pushing this bill through in the dark of night under urgency is unnecessary. I think there are plenty of people in this House who would support those aims and we would have liked to have some input into them. We do not want to see a mucked up bill come in that adversely affects New Zealanders; we want the truth to emerge and what has been promised here to be delivered on. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can you read the five again? 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister wants me to read the five again? I am getting a little bit exhausted. Does she think there might be someone else on the end of the radio now? 
Hon Annette King 
: I am just enjoying it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Ha ha! There is a better way of looking after this country than introducing this knee-jerk sort of Budget which flashes out the money and the lollies. There is a better way of doing it—a planned economy. To be without a plan is to plan to fail. But we would sooner have this money in the pockets of New Zealand family people than have it sitting in the little chest that Dr Cullen goes and sits all night playing Scrooge with. We would sooner it were in the pockets of families. Therefore New Zealand First will—I was going to say support this bill going to the select committee but the Government has abolished the select committee process on this bill. To hell with democracy! The Government is just imposing itself here. Right or wrong we are being imposed on. Well the Government has the aims right but it has the process wrong. 
Hon Annette King 
: One out of two isn’t bad. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is about the measure of it: one out of two—half of it. New Zealand First will support this bill as it is. We will try to examine it in detail as we go through the debate in the House but that is a pretty tall order because I suspect there will be some major errors in it. However I do not want New Zealanders to suffer. Here is an opportunity to give some of Dr Cullen’s money back to them and we will not stop that occurring for anything. 
 In the unlikely event that this bill is right when we lead the next Government we will not be repealing it. But I have my doubts that it is right—[ 
Interruption 
] Do members want me to say that again? When we lead the next Government if this bill is correct we will not be repealing it. We will support the progress of this bill but if we find something wrong we will highlight it hard and long. We hope for the good of New Zealanders that the Government has got it right because it would be the first time that this Government has done something once and done it properly. We say it is better that the money is in the pockets of the average New Zealander of family people than in the pockets of the wealthy—so let us hope that the Government has got it right. We will be monitoring it carefully. 
We will support this bill.