Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13451] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill be now read a second time 
. I have listened with interest during the first part of what passes for a debate. It is a pretty one-sided debate because this is how it has run so far. Mrs Katherine Rich having worked her way through the argument about whether she was paid parental leave—whether it was via the paid parental leave provisions or by using her salary—then went on to advance what I think was one argument which was that we ought to have made tax cuts. If she has a look at what that means she will see that most of the people who will gain from this package—say a family on $30000—simply would not have got anything. In fact they would have been in a negative position by an across-the-board tax cut. So I hope the National Opposition carries on advancing that argument throughout the rest of this debate. 
National members have so far told us that they are not voting for in-work payments families childcare and all the things in this package but they have not told us that they will repeal the legislation. I do invite the next National Party speaker to put on the record should by some mistake—because I cannot think of any other way it would happen—National become the Government led no doubt by Peter Brown and New Zealand First I am sure whether it would repeal the legislation. Let us go to the election knowing very clearly that the National Party position is not only to vote against kids work and all the things in this legislation but it would actively stop people getting the money that is in there. Let us hear from the National Party on that. It is the courageous position to take. It is the one Gerry Brownlee would take if he were leader because there is no subtlety about Gerry Brownlee. He would be up on his feet thumping and telling us that repeal was the option. I am sure that if he speaks next he will tell us that. 
I was moved by Peter Brown’s speech today. It had sheer clarity as he led us through the five basic principles that drive the legislation the National Party opposes: making work pay and moving parents off benefits increasing family incomes increasing accommodation affordability increasing childcare assistance and simplifying the system. As he nobly led us through that and as the National Party sat next door saying it did not support any of those things I was moved by his speech which was later reinforced by Barbara Stewart’s speech that said the same thing and that also made the very telling point—[ 
Interruption 
] We are worried about poverty on this side of the House whether or not National is worried. John Key for example would not know poverty if he drove past it in the Mercedes. He does not realise but Barbara Stewart does that this legislation will reduce poverty by 70 percent—and it will. She said that was why she was voting for it. Simon Power does not want to vote for something that will reduce poverty amongst children in New Zealand but Barbara Stewart does. Lindsay Tisch does not want to support anything that overcomes poverty but Barbara Stewart does. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask you to consider whether the content of the Minister’s speech is appropriate for this debate. There have been numerous personal reflections which I do not think do him a lot of credit and it would be unfortunate if the standard of debate in the rest of the evening were to be lowered to a constant toing and froing of what are simply personal reflections as opposed to the merits or otherwise of the bill. We do understand the Government’s embarrassment over this bill but surely its members could mount some defence of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Again I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The use of personal reflections under Standing Order 116 is a matter I have taken into consideration during the course of the speech. Disparaging remarks occur quite frequently in this Parliament but it is the personal reflection that is out of order. No objection was made by Mr Key and therefore the robustness of this debate gave me the indication he did not object. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I always welcome what Sue Bradford has to say. She is a person who has done the hard yards and she tells us the Greens want to support this bill because they too want to do something about poverty childcare and so on. Richard Prebble not surprisingly gave the most lucid opposition to this bill—unlike the National Party which still does not seem to be able to do what the ACT party can do and actually make its mind up on the issue. The ACT party would vote against it would repeal it and does not want to pass it. Basically that party wants to give massive tax cuts. That is a clear position tonight. United Future will vote for it. Its members said they would vote for it. 
John Key the pretender to the throne raised a whole series of points on that side of the Chamber. For example he asked us why Treasury reports show benefit forecasts still going up. I tell the member that Treasury always has those forecasts going up and the Government always comes in underneath them. We will carry on doing exactly that into the future. 
The last speaker was Lockwood Smith whose only major contribution that I could see was to tell us that he used to sing a song called  
Oh What a Circus 
 which I suppose was from one of the pantomimes he was in when he was young and as a music lover I greatly appreciate being reminded of that song by him—but I cannot remember anything else he said. 
The interesting thing about all of this is what National members—who are basically the only people with a wavering quivering position on this bill suitable to the party and who honestly do not quite know what to do with it—are voting against. They are voting against housing becoming more affordable in October this year because the accommodation supplement abatement thresholds will change. They are voting against that first of all. I want to ask whether the National Party does not want to improve the abatement thresholds so that people attain more money when they go to work. Does it not do that? Well we will see. On 4 October this year the subsidy for out-of-school childcare rates will increase. People will get more money for that and will not have to pay so much. So on 4 October the National Party will not want that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Another crap— 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Well Mr Prebble at least says: “No I don’t.” all the time whereas National members all sit there like stunned mullets saying they really do not know what to do with this bill. It sounds pretty good stuff to them but they are trying to sit there and pretend they want to vote against it. 
In December this year the invalid benefits will change so that more invalids can go to work for over 15 hours stay in employment try out whether it works and gradually work into a job. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Brownlee whether he is against that—against the notion that invalid beneficiaries can get into work. National complains all the time about the numbers going up but it never has a policy about how to reduce them. We have a policy about how to reduce the numbers. 
Does Simon Power want to vote for more invalid beneficiaries to go to work or is he content to be part of the process of sitting back and just seeing those numbers carry on rising? I ask that member what he reckons. Do we want to say to the  
Manawatu Evening Standard 
 that Simon Power does not want to see invalid beneficiaries get a chance to go to work and retain more income? He does not want to vote for that. Well I suggest he try this: on 1 April next year family support benefits unsupported child benefits and orphans benefits will all be extended to 260000 New Zealand families. Now I ask Mr Brownlee whether we will hear him in the Christchurch  
Press  
saying: “I don’t want anyone getting more family support. That is awful. They’re going to be reliant on the State. They’re going to have money coming into their households. I don’t want it.” I am expecting to see that headline in the Christchurch  
Press  
next year. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may have escaped the Minister’s notice but the bill actually provides for the repeal of family support later in the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The member is very experienced and he should know better. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Will Mr Brownlee also have a headline in the Christchurch  
Press  
that says: “Grandparents raising grandchildren are not going to get another $15 a week because of the changes in this bill on 1 April next year.”? Is Maurice Williamson intending that the people of Pakuranga will hear from him: “I don’t want to see anybody get that money.”? 
Let us move on to the accommodation supplement areas. We have increased the amount of the accommodation supplement in places like Nelson for example. So will Nick Smith now having insisted time after time to me that the cure for the housing problems of Nelson would be an increase in the accommodation supplement courageously say in the Nelson newspaper that he no longer wants it? He has argued and pleaded for the Nelson people to have a higher rate of accommodation supplement and the Government is giving it to them but Nick Smith—and he can take the next call and tell us what he thinks—will be in the paper saying: “No thanks I don’t want that. I didn’t mean that at all. I’m going to vote against an increase in the accommodation supplement for Nelson. I don’t want it.” This is Pythonesque. We will get to the point where like John Cleese he is saying: “What has the Labour Government ever done for us in Nelson? It has put the accommodation supplement up it has put the family support up it has changed things for 260000 people but we do not want it. Do not give it to us. We will campaign every time the Labour Government tries to give more money to people.” 
John Key will drive his Mercedes down to the newspaper offices and ask to be put in the newspaper requesting that on 3 October next year childcare and out-of-school care subsidies are not increased and that he does not want 28000 more families getting more money. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr Brownlee is so anxious that I want him to start voting against these measure from 1 October this year. I want to see all those courageous people on the other side of this Chamber who are voting against the legislation out there saying “No thanks”.