Eckhoff Gerrard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13460] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I have seen something today that I have never seen before either in this House or outside it. I saw two grey-haired gentlemen stand up for the Government. I saw two sugar daddies. We all know what a sugar daddy is. He is somebody who accumulates wealth in order to receive favours when he dishes it out a little later. Both Dr Cullen and Steve Maharey epitomise the sugar daddies of this Government. Often members of the ACT party are criticised as people who advocate for the rich and who do not understand what it is like to be poor. I am delighted to be an advocate for the rich. I have been a beneficiary. I have been to the public trough and dined there for years. Then my colleague Mr Prebble took away my supplementary minimum prices and I was no longer a beneficiary. I had to learn to stand on my feet and do members know what happened? The farming and rural industry has thrived to the extent that this Government has not even mentioned it either in this bill or the Budget. That is what happens when people are taken out of dependency. 
Members of this Government probably will not understand that but there are some really frightening statistics that I want to touch on this evening. In 1970 27 working people supported one person on some form of Government support. That was a ratio of 27:1 in 1970. Thirty years later the ratio has gone down to four working people supporting one person who is on some form of Government support. My question this evening is: where will we be in a couple of years? Where will the ratio be? Will this Government be happy when the ratio is 1:1? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Look over there. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I ask Government members to face me and answer my question. Will they be happy when the ratio is one productive person—one working person—to one beneficiary? That is the direction in which that package and this Budget are taking us. 
One thing I want to say about the Minister of Finance this evening is that he is a man of his word. I shall read to members this evening the words of the Minister of Finance in his maiden speech: “I am proud of the fact that my secondary education was not paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand but by the farmers of Canterbury and Hawke’s Bay. I ripped them off for 5 years then and I shall get stuck into them again in the next few years.” I have to say that the honourable member has kept his word. He is getting stuck into the lucky ones who have some form of discretionary income. 
I have heard members of the Government United Future and the Greens say that they do not mind paying tax. They think it is appropriate that those on a reasonable income—a back-bencher’s or Cabinet Minister’s income—should pay tax and more tax. I invite members of the Greens United Future and the Government to open their wallets or to take their chequebooks out of their pockets or wherever and write a cheque for the consolidated account right now. If they enjoy paying tax and want to pay more nobody on this side of the House will stop them. I shall pause for a moment and look around the Government the Greens and United Future to see how many of those members are prepared to write out a cheque. I do not see any. Lianne Dalziel is writing out a cheque. How the mighty have fallen. It will bounce. I want a cheque that will work. That is one of the great problems we face in this country. 
The Government purports to understand the less well off and the poor in this country. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In an academic sense. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: That is exactly right. Mr Prebble has stolen my thunder. The Prime Minister and Dr Cullen have studied poor people. They went to university and studied the less well off. They have read books about the poor and those who are on some form of Government assistance. That is the extent of the Government’s understanding of those at the bottom or near to the bottom of the socio-economic scale. What is so frustrating for the public of this country—and it is frustrating—is that this Government wants to patronise them forever. They do not want patronage from this Government. They want opportunity. 
Essentially this Government is robbing Peter to pay Paul—the old adage—but it even has a twist on that one. It is robbing Peter to pay Peter. It is taking money away from the earners and putting it through the Government coffers. We economists call it the churn factor or transaction costs. The Government is taking the money away from Peter churning it through the Government system taking off at least 20 percent then deciding who it will give it back to at some later stage. 
The  
Holmes 
 poll tonight showed very clearly that people have had absolutely enough. When people were asked to vote on whether this Budget did it for them 8400 said no and a mere 1800 said yes. They probably got a free phone call from the Government. But that result is quite astounding. Here we have the Government’s flagship. Today was the great launch of the Government’s flagship. This is how it is going to win the next election but 8400 were agin it and a mere 1800 were in favour. It is quite extraordinary. 
Very clearly this Government is in a desperate situation. This bill is a desperate measure driven by desperate people. The truly desperate people in this country are people like Marilynn McLachlan and Tony Gilbert who were featured in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 a few weeks ago. They are the desperate people with four children who cannot make ends meet under 5 years of this Government. It is only a year ago that the Government said that if people earned $55000 a year then they were rich. The Government has now turned around 1 year later and said: “Oh gosh we got it wrong. I’m sorry folks. We’re going to have to take your money away from you again and give you a bit back after we filter it through our own processes. Once we take off for ourselves whatever it is we want we’ll give you a little bit back.” 
I would have thought—and I think that Mr Brown’s amendment is a good one—that it should be immediate. If the Government is so concerned about the less well off then it will be immediate. The truth is is that it will be October then April and then 2007. Such is the Government’s concern about the less well off it is saying: “Wait 2 years. Wait until after the next election and then we will give you some of your own resources back.” That is an outrageous situation. The members of the public who rang the  
Holmes 
 show this evening clearly understood the largesse of this Government.