Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. Today is a shameful day and I'm reminded of the reasons why I came to this House in the first place and why I've been a supporter of the Labour Party since the 1990s and that mother of all Budgets" that the previous member Dan Bidois referred to. I want to begin by telling a couple of stories that I think get to the heart of this matter.Around 20 years ago a friend of mine living in Auckland—his marriage ended. He was around 60 years of age. It was his second relationship. He had three young children; some of whom were primary school age. His wife left him for someone else. He worked in IT and he lived out in West Auckland and had to travel long distances into Auckland City in order to get to his job. Now he had young children including one who was not at school. He had to leave his job and go on the benefit. It was under the fifth Labour Government. I remember him telling me what happened when he went into Work and Income. The Work and Income officer said "Your job is to raise your children." The previous member talked about work. Childcare—raising children—is work. Changing nappies doing washing all of those things are work. And it's particularly women and solo mums who do this kind of work. For those women to be discriminated against through some of these changes—and it's their children who will suffer and it's their families who will suffer—and I think for us to say that that isn't work really undermines the contribution that single parents make to society.The other story I want to talk about is my best friend in Nelson who is a single parent. She left a violent relationship to basically save the lives of her small children. The police said to me that this particular person was number one on their watch-list for family violence offenders in Nelson—I have no doubt that her children's lives were at risk. I remember—this was under the National Government when sanctions were introduced and it became tougher for people to access the benefit—she said to me that it was like leaving a violent relationship with her husband and entering a violent relationship with the State. There was a time when she took her smallest child into a Work and Income office and was told that the child wasn't allowed to use the toilet and the child wet her pants in the Work and Income office. Where is the dignity in that?So I ask those on the other side of the House—some of whom have been smirking and laughing and interrupting my colleagues talking about when their parents passed away from cancer—those who profess to be Christian as I am who go to church services each week and I hope would pray for the poorest of our nation to actually think about what they're doing to our most vulnerable people.Now we've heard very very confused arguments from the other side. Some have said this is just an administrative matter; others have actually admitted it is to reduce cost. We know looking back over the last 20 years or so that in most years—around nine out of 10 years—wage increases have been higher than inflation. That is why we made this change: because the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said that this was the most significant change that could be made to benefits to ensure that people had enough to live with dignity.We're talking about people who literally are spending their entire day raising three-year-olds and maybe a four-year-old as well; changing their nappies feeding them getting them to early childhood education cooking for them. In some cases those same people are also having to go to Family Court every week because they've got a vexatious ex-partner taking them to Family Court. So I just ask those of us who have lived these lives or who haven't lived these lives to actually just for once walk in the shoes of other people.I am the daughter of a solo mother. We were temporarily a solo parent household—again through no fault of our own; my father left our household—and there were five of us under the age of 10 some of whom were still at primary school and at early childhood. My mother was able to go back to work. We were able to manage without a benefit. But if my mother hadn't—and I see smirking again—been a registered teacher she wouldn't have been able to do that and actually get a job that worked around the hours of children. Even then she was only part time. Even then because my father was very well paid and was able to pay quite high child support—again if we hadn't had high child support payments we would have had to go on a benefit. So think about the lives of these people for once rather than posturing to people's misunderstandings around what lives are like for those on benefit.Just recently I've had a lovely couple come into my office. It's a heartbreaking case and I think it tells the picture about how much New Zealanders just don't understand what life on a low income and on the benefit is really like. This couple—their children are grown up they have a mortgage and they're both in full-time work. One of them has recently had a really serious set of injuries. He's unable to work now and at this stage—we are challenging it—has been denied ACC. So the working partner thought "Well we've paid our taxes all our lives. I'll go to Work and Income. They'll be able to help." Of course they were told—and I had to tell them that this was correct—that they earned too much to receive any support from Work and Income. Now they'd always thought that if they came upon hardship they could just turn up to Work and Income and get help. They're possibly now going to have to sell their house and have to take out KiwiSaver.So the reminder I think to people on the other side—and I see all their heads are down now which is interesting—a reminder that tough times can fall on any of us. I think many people think that when we fall on those tough times that the State will be there for us. The reality is there are many many times when we do fall on tough times and the State isn't there.Now the view of the Labour Party is that when people are under tough times when they don't have—and come on try living on the benefit and paying rent each week for goodness sake; it pretty much doesn't leave much to live on after that. What we're going to see now is that overall weekly benefit eroded over time. And as the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said this was the single most important change that a Government could make to actually lift benefits over time and that is what is now being wound down. As I say it's a shameful day—it's a shameful day.If this Government does manage to magic up some tax cuts—I've got no idea how they're going to do that but if they do—every single one of us in this room those of us who are parliamentarians will get a tax cut. Why the heck do I need a tax cut? I find it immoral. In fact I'm so angry—I'm so angry—that I would receive a tax cut. Utterly immoral.Laura Trask: Then donate your tax cut.RACHEL BOYACK: Oh I will be. I will be donating it to the NGOs that are closing in Nelson because there's no funding from this Government—I will be donating it I can assure you of that.Hon Member: The tax cuts aren't about funding NGOs.RACHEL BOYACK: Because I don't want it. I don't want it. Why would we possibly give ourselves tax cuts? Oh now they're all heckling again. OK so I think it's a thing in the Bible we call "greed". Yeah that one. Just remember that one. Those of us earning over $160000 a year let's just be fair New Zealanders—all of us in this room earn over $160000 a year—Hon Member: Are we still on the bill?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes we are still on the bill. The member's making her comparison.RACHEL BOYACK: Yep. Well you know what? Madam Speaker some people have said this is to reduce cost to pay for tax cuts. So I'm just responding to previous—I know you weren't in the Chair but there were quite a few members making those types of references around reducing cost burden to the State so I'm just discussing what that cost burden to the State—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah no I've agreed with that. So keep going.RACHEL BOYACK: So I don't want a tax cut when I know that people like my friend who are raising children and are doing it on their own because they left a violent relationship over the next few years will not have as much money in their pocket to pay rent. I haven't come to this House for me; I've come to this House for them. This is a shameful day and I do not commend this bill to the House."