Rich Katherine: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Rich Katherine: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13501] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 We have heard a lot from the Labour Party today about how good this bill is. Well if it is so good why is no one sitting on the front bench? Where is the Labour Party? Why are its members not here in the Chamber supporting the bill talking about it and defending it to the hilt? We have heard from one member that there is a beautiful elegance in this bill. If that is the case why are Labour Party members not in this Chamber demanding their turn to debate it so that they can talk to their constituents? We have heard it is a fabulous fillip. That is a joke is it not? If that is the case where are the Labour Party members? Why are all these empty seats before me? Where are the big guns? Where are the people who are going to debate this bill? 
As for the 0800 number so far the only use of the 0800 number to members on this side is to find out that some of the original figures were incorrect in the first place. I hope New Zealanders are ringing the 0800 number. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I think it would be quite nice actually to find which clause of the bill she is talking to in this Committee stage. There has been no mention of anything yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I guess I have been fairly lenient I suppose is the word because— 
Peter Brown 
: You’re very lenient on their members. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That member knows the rules. When I am ruling on a point of order there will be silence. I say to Mr Copeland that I have been lenient over the last several speakers. I now ask members to address Part 2 of the bill. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: In speaking to the point of order may I say we have just had a speech from Mark Peck who said nothing whatsoever about the bill. We had a speech from Steve Chadwick who did the same. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will pleased be seated. I have ruled on Mr Copeland’s point of order. I have indicated that yes I have been lenient. I now ask that members speak to Part 2 of the bill. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I understood that members who rise to speak in this debate are able to make mention of comments that previous speakers have made. In fact all of the comments I have made so far have been in relation to comments made by other members who have spoken and in fact have been rebuttals of comments that other members have made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is true. However I have ruled and I have ruled that I have been lenient and that there has been some leeway this morning. I am now saying that the member has raised a legitimate point of order and I am now asking people to speak to the bill. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As a point of clarification are we led to believe that because a lot of other members have spoken and had their say when a National members stands up to speak you will not be lenient from this point on—now that the Opposition is having a say? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have already ruled on that and I have asked members to return to the bill. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Part 2 is about the taxation-related amendments. It has been very interesting to hear some members from that side talk about how excited they are about some of the headlines they have read up and down the country. I would like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to take a call to say how he feels about the  
Otago Daily Times 
 headline that states: “Budget on the never-never”. That confirms what I think four out of five New Zealanders have already established—that there is nothing in this bill for them. Mark Peck spoke about the battlers. He said this bill was all about the battlers. Well the  
Otago Daily Times 
 states: “Battling New Zealanders will have to wait.” So once again we are seeing confirmation that this bill does not deliver anything for most working New Zealanders at all and for those to whom it does deliver something it drip-feeds it out over a couple of years. 
The other point the Minister made was about the tax implications of the accommodation supplement. It was very interesting to hear Steve Maharey talk about the accommodation supplement. When he was in Opposition he railed against the accommodation supplement and said things like: “The Government will rely on shuffling money from people who will have to register for the accommodation supplement to get that supplement and give it back to the landlord who will give it back to officials who will put it into the accommodation supplement in order to give it back to those people.” Well has he not changed his tune? He has gone from thinking the accommodation supplement was a waste of time to further entrenching it. He used to think it was just a payback for landlords. He originally said that New Zealanders needed to have it explained to them that the accommodation supplement was a hoax and that it seemed silly for the Government to take money off people through taxation only to give it back as the accommodation supplement. Well has the Minister not changed his tune? I think he needs to take a call and explain why he is now so keen on the accommodation supplement when he was so anti it when it was first proposed by National. 
The next thing that the Minister said he was aiming to do was to simplify the benefit system and simplify the taxation implications. Well I challenge the Minister to go out into the street show this bill to New Zealanders and say: “There you go. You work out what you’re going to get as a result of this bill.” I think most New Zealanders would read this bill look at how complex it is and say: “I’m none the wiser.” I think that is why New Zealanders have worked out that four out of five New Zealanders will not get anything out of this Budget and that those who will get something will have to remain on a benefit for the next 3 years. I challenge the Minister to get up and explain what some of these implications are. 
I think it is a travesty that the Minister has not got the guts to refer this bill to a select committee for full scrutiny. Already we have seen some amendments and that shows us that the bill is actually a work in progress. I predict that we will be back here very soon doing some amendments to Part 2 because what has been done has not been fully worked through. It has not had the scrutiny of Parliament. There have not been public submissions. We have not seen what Treasury’s response is. The bill is going to be a disaster.