Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13434] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT party. ACT will be voting against this measure. We say to the House that it has no redeeming features. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: None. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: None whatsoever. What it does show is that the package that has been put in front of the House is a welfare Work and Income package and not one for working families. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member calls out “Rubbish!”— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He said “Rubbish!” It is. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That shows that Mr Cunliffe did not bother to get briefed on the Budget or alternatively did but did not care about this interesting detail in the Budget. I ask the House why we are having to sit in urgency. There is only one reason we have to sit in urgency and that is in order to bring measures in. What are we bringing the measures in for? Are they being brought in for working families? When we actually look at the Budget we find that the position of working families does not change as the member says. The reason for the urgency is that on 1 April 2005 family support which will go to welfare beneficiary households will increase. It is regarded as so important to suddenly do something for Labour’s welfare base that the House will have to sit in urgency! 
 If members think that is not correct they can look at page 5 to see that the current benefit rate structure will change. Who will get the increase but domestic purposes widows unemployment and sickness beneficiaries. Invalids benefits domestic purposes benefits and caring for the sick and infirm; that is why we are rushing this measure through. But members have heard leaks from statements Dr Cullen has made to this House. He said that the purpose of this Budget—and I guess he claims the purpose of this bill—is to help working families and members are starting to say how urgent and necessary that is. I heard the Green Party and I think the New Zealand First Party say they all thought that that was well worthwhile. So let us see when the new in-work benefit starts. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Midnight tonight? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member asks whether it is midnight tonight. Under urgency that would be a reasonable assumption. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No. Is it 1 April 2005 when the Government’s welfare beneficiaries get a massive—one cannot call it a pay increase because they do not work—increase in their benefits? No it is not that. I would like to hear from the next Labour member why the date is 1 April 2006. Why do working people have to wait 2 years? Every single member who votes for this bill is saying to every working person in New Zealand who gets the increase: “I thought it was so important you should wait 2 years.” Of course what those members will probably say is: “Look don’t complain because most working people got nothing.” 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: That’s right. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is right. Statistics New Zealand says there are 550000 working families in New Zealand with dependants and the Minister tells us that eventually in 2 years’ time 150000 working people with dependants will receive some money. The 150000 beneficiary-led families will have it paid early and that leaves—and I know that everyone on the other side of the House has done the calculations so I want them to forgive me for pointing it out just in case they have not—250000 working families in New Zealand with dependants who if members support this bill will get nothing. 
Dr Cullen told the House that he had gone through the Budget carefully to make sure there were no losers. Where was Mr Cunliffe when those calculations were being done? He occasionally visits the New Lynn constituency—not often as he does not want to stay there—but he occasionally comes to visit us in New Lynn. How is it that he did not point out to Dr Cullen that the majority of working people in the New Lynn constituency will be losers in this Budget? Their only role Mr Cunliffe is to be bystanders and to pay for this largesse that the Labour-Progressive—and I suppose United Future doormat—Government will be supporting. I thought the United Future Party supported families. But no United Future will apparently vote for this package so those members support this increase in welfarism. They support making New Zealanders more dependent. 
Let me give this example. [ 
Interruption 
] No the member should listen to this. If one takes the example of a family with two children on a moderate income of $50000 a year and work out where it will be after this Budget in 2 years’ time it is true that it will get a slight increase in its position. But the family’s net position is that as taxpayers they will pay more to the Government than they receive back. But if that family on $50000 a year decides to halve its income to $25000 and have 20 hours off then it qualifies under this Budget. What happens to its real net income? It is only $4500 worse off than if it was earning $50000 a year. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Absolutely! In fact it might be worse than that. I have not been able to quite work it out but there will be a new special accommodation allowance for parts of Auckland—which may or may not include the New Lynn electorate; I suspect it does. I think that under the accommodation allowance the difference between earning $25000 and $50000 a year after all payments would probably work out at around $80 a week. That is a huge incentive not to take overtime or work extra but to go to the boss and say: “Look I would rather work 30 hours a week than 40 because 10 hours a week is worth more to me than being paid $4000 a year.” Of course it is because one could probably go off and do a bit of— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Moonlighting. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: —moonlighting. But I would not suggest that any New Zealander would do that—even though theInland Revenue Department says that moonlighting in New Zealand is worth somewhere between $6 billion and $10 billion a year in the black economy. This bill will see the biggest boost to the black economy ever. If one has children the only way to get ahead is to first breed because the more children one has the more money one gets—it is much easier than working hard. The second thing one should do—under this bill—is to reduce the number of hours one does and then take up a cash job like mowing lawns or something similar. 
I say to members opposite that that is what they are doing. This is a bill to take us on a low-wage Third World economy path. There are no redeeming features in this bill. This is nothing compared with the huge impact that we would have on the prosperity of New Zealand and the prospects of every New Zealand child if there were a 20c flat rate of tax—which we could have had. Instead what we have is the sight of members of Parliament after having taken $6 billion of the taxpayers’ money from them asking to be praised for having given some of it back. State radio asked me today: “Isn’t it fair enough for the Labour Party to be helping and looking after its people?” and I think that shows exactly the level of morality of this Government. It should not be looking after its people; it should be looking after all the people. It should be looking after the nation instead of being a narrow partisan Government which is way behind in the polls. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They are all our people. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I say to Mr Cunliffe the Liberal Party in Australia put forward a benefit breeding programme where the Treasurer said: “This is a policy that is going to encourage people to have kids.” and what happened to that party’s popularity? It went into free fall. The only thing stopping this Government from going into free fall is one cannot really go into free fall when one is already under 38 percent—but one can still fall; that can still happen. I say to Mr Cunliffe that he can look for— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What’s your support—1 percent? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No since I have quit the leadership it has gone up by 50 percent—so I am looking for great things.