Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Chair. Well what a cheeky and quite confused lot we have over on the other side. For a start we had a contribution yesterday that suggested that a strong Labour Government enabled these benefits to be increased that all of this $5.5 billion package was due to the fantastic governance of the three-way coalition Government. What a lot of nonsense. What a lot of nonsense.The funds that are available to be distributed to those in need are a direct result of the previous National Government building surpluses over time which are enabling and giving the privilege to Mr Robertson to distribute hard-earned taxpayers' funds to those that need it most. But they haven't done that. They haven't even done that. They have not distributed to those that need it most.The Best Start tax credit is available to anyone who has a newborn child—anyone. And look at them: they do not like that point. Finance Minister can you answer this question: why are you giving this money unnecessarily to those that do not need it? Why is that? The reason I heard the Minister say earlier is that it is because it's needed. It's needed.It's very expensive and I know it is very expensive to have kids—I've got plenty of them. I've three of my own and I picked up three on the way so I know the cost of having children. I know the cost of having children and I can tell you Mr Robertson it is not the zero- to three-year-olds that are the most expensive. It is certainly not the zero to threes that are the most expensive. Mr Robertson if I could have more kids—and I can't; well I could but it would mean a reversal—but if I could and if I did I would not need the tax credit. Thank you for the offer Mr Robertson but I do not need it because I earn $160000 in this place and it is just ridiculous to suggest that we here if we have newborn kids need this money. So it's not needs-based as the Minister suggested in his last contribution late last night; it is a universal benefit that is absolutely unfair to those that do need it most.So my question is why not take it from those that don't need it? I don't know where you might want to cut off the threshold—is it the average wage or the median wage? Willie Jackson might know the difference between those by now; I'm not sure. Or is it $79000 which is a number that's also somewhere in this bill? Why not cut it off at some point and give it more to those that need it most?It's interesting that we've been talking about universal benefits. The Labour Government is voting against essentially a universal tax credit of $1060. They've cut it right. They've cut it. So they're against the universal tax credit—and it's fine to take that stand. I'm against the universal baby bonus. But the difference is that the baby bonus is taking money from people who are hard-working Kiwis and giving it to people who don't need it. Hard-working Kiwis—1.2 million of them—are not benefiting at all out of this package. They pay tax and they essentially will be giving their hard-earned tax money to people on high incomes. That's not on and that's not fair. The fairness in the universality of the $1060 is that it is their money. This is what the Labour Government's forgotten—that it is the taxpayers' money that we're dealing with here. Hard-working Kiwis $1060—why can't they keep it? Why are they not able to keep it? Why should they not be keeping it?I'd like that question asked as well. Of course we've talked about the universality of the free tertiary education—another problem.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's not in Part 1 of the bill.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Yep fine fair enough. My main point here is the universality—[Time expired]