Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): It is a pity I have not got a little bit longer because there is about 10 minutes of rebuttal for every point that the last speaker Parmjeet Parmar made. There are a couple of things I would like to point out first and foremost if I may. The member who has just resumed her seat talked about happy employees being more productive and you know what? I could not agree more with that. All the evidence shows that when someone is happy in their work and happy in their life they are far more productive.But I suppose when I look at this bill and I look at what constitutes a happy employee I have a different view of this. I have worked in business. I have studied business. I know how this sort of stuff works. I would suggest that 50c an hour—[Interruption] Are you clapping? Feel free to clap. I would suggest that 50c an hour which is going to be delivered in a bill like this is a hell of a lot less in terms of making families happy employees happy and workers and businessmen and businesswomen happy than perhaps I do not know delivering safer communities or perhaps delivering houses or maybe healthcare or maybe education. I am not sure. Maybe I am wrong in this but every sort of indication I have is that happy productive employees are not those who will get $1 an hour; it is employees who can go home to a house that they call their own. Happy employees have not got a child among the 50000 who are in hospital with a respiratory disease.Brett Hudson: You've just defined them as rich Stuart.STUART NASH: I am quite interested in hearing what this member has to say because I think he is so far out of touch with what is actually going on in this country that it is quite astounding. I wish actually that those who are listening to this debate could hear this. There is a whole lot going on in our society at the moment that people are—on 23 September and a couple of weeks beforehand actually—going to have to make a choice about and that choice is about what sort of country we want to live in. What sorts of communities do we want our children to grow up in? You can have the compassionate. You can have Labour led by Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern where it is about building communities and understanding what makes communities work what drives compassion. It is the sort of community that I grew up in.What happened is I got home from school every day we drank a pint of milk we had a Marmite sandwich and we scattered. We scattered around the neighbourhood. We did not lock the house of course and you could leave your bike outside the dairy without it being a problem. Then what would happen at 6 o'clock—my mother had this huge big bell. She would ring it and it would resonate throughout the community and what would happen was children would scatter to all corners of the earth. There were the lawyer's sons the accountant's sons but there were the sons of the mechanic the machine shop workers. This was a community and a society where everyone was equal. We all owned houses. Sure someone's father might have earned a little bit more than someone else's father but it did not matter. We all paid our taxes we all owned homes and we were happy. The thing is that we all went to school and played rugby and we all dressed the same. There were not these massive gaps. There were not these massive gaps and inequality. When I look at this—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I pulled up the previous speaker and I reiterate the point I made. It is all very well having some generic material—that is always interesting—but you must relate it back to the substance of what is in the bill and it is the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill. This is not a general debate. It is not a debate on the Budget. I ask you to come back to the substance of this bill.STUART NASH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding and I have not got the reference in front of me that if members from the opposite side are interjecting and throwing comments out then I have the right to answer them.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No just because someone interjects does not mean to say that you need to deviate away from the substance of your bill. I have heard in that 3½ minutes probably about 3 minutes about what you used to do when you came home from school and having Marmite sandwiches. It is all very interesting because I used to do the same but the thing about it is to relate it back to what is in the bill.STUART NASH: I suppose the point I was making is that both you and I grew up in a different type of community where we valued community where we were all equal where there was not that level of inequality and social stratification that we see now. I suppose the reason I am making that point is if we are going into urgency if the only bill we are passing under urgency that comes out of this Budget is a bill that talks about giving a few people a little bit of money some who do not really need it a little bit more and others not very much at all—if this is really where the Government thinks that the greatest need in our communities is then that is a shame. When I read this bill and I have a good look through it and I try to digest where the Government's vision for this country is—because we are sitting in urgency. Normally what most of us would be doing is visiting constituents talking to organisations or helping those with issues but we are in this House debating this bill so it is important or it is seen by the Government to be important. But if this is the most important issue facing our country today then I think it shows how out of touch that Government is.One of the reasons I say this is that on Tuesday one of the bills that we were debating was the tax rates bill for 2016-17. We have not even passed legislation that codifies the tax rates for last year. Yet we are putting a bill through urgency that talks about tax rates for next year. Surely if it was so important then the Government would have done the other bill through urgency. I do not even think we have passed that bill yet have we? We are debating next year's and we have not done last year's.I suppose all that I can say is that I would love a tax cut. Like the vast majority of New Zealanders I would love to have more money in my back pocket because I do work hard. I acknowledge that every New Zealander who works—well the vast majority of New Zealanders who work do work hard. I know that the vast majority of New Zealanders who work would love a tax cut. But what I also know is if you give New Zealanders a choice between a tax cut or an increase in education or more police in their neighbourhood or mental health services then they will say: Give me the social services."I know we are not supposed to bring families into this debate but I have got four children and they range in age from 3½ to 15. The thing that I am a little bit concerned about is the world that they are growing up in and it is different from the world that I grew up in and that is the point I was making. The concern I have—Hon Maurice Williamson: You're telling me the world's changed?STUART NASH: The world has changed. You are dead right Mr Williamson—the world has changed. But unfortunately the government is not recognising that fact. There are some things that have changed for the better. I get that. But there are other things where the Government can actually make things better and that is the role of the Government. There is the fact that our schools are underfunded by $100 million. Lloyd Burr got this right on TV3 last night when he said that the health system is so underfunded it remains in crisis. I suppose the thing that makes me a little bit sad a little bit mad and a little bit more passionate to work a little bit harder to win the election is if this bill the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill really is—really is—addressing the most salient issues the most pressing issues in our community according to that Government then it is out of touch then it has got it wrong.This will provide a little bit of extra money to a whole lot of workers I acknowledge that. But what it does not do is really address the issues that New Zealanders are telling us they care about. No New Zealander said: "I want a tax cut. I do not care about anything else." What they said is "Give me a house. Give me a warm dry house. Make sure my kids can get educated. Make sure the health system is there for our children and our communities. Do not spend a billion dollars on a prison; spend a billion dollars on our schools." That is what New Zealanders want. They want the life that I had and no doubt—I do not want to bring you into it Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Then do not.STUART NASH: —that we all had. Alastair Scott grew up in exactly the same community that I did. We were running round. We were happy. We went to the hospital. Our schools were well funded. We had a great time but that is not the future or the present for a whole lot of kids in our community.When we are having 50000 New Zealand kids admitted to hospital with respiratory diseases we know we are in a little bit of trouble. The thing about this bill is it does not address those issues. It does not address those issues. What is in here for the 50000 kids who are admitted to hospital every year with a respiratory disease? How are they going to benefit from this? How are they going to benefit from this? The $20 a week yeah that is nice and that will go a way for a lot of families and it is money for a lot of families but it does not address the core issues. It shows a lack of understanding of what makes a really good community.New Zealanders should be rewarded when they work hard but New Zealanders also deserve to grow up in a community where they are safe and where their kids are going to get education. In fact my underlying political reason for being and my philosophy is equality of opportunity. I just do not see that this bill delivers on equality of opportunity in any way shape or form. That is the sort of bill that we should be debating under urgency—the sort of bill that does allow our kids to get educated the healthcare that is needed in our communities and the police that are required to keep our communities safe that is why I cannot support this bill. Thank you."