Scott Lynda: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Scott Lynda: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13488] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This debate today on the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill really demonstrates the difference between socialism and capitalism. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: It does. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: 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. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: 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.