King Annette: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13438] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I rise to support the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill. The name says it all. It is about the future—the future today the future tomorrow year in and year out. This legislation is about what this Government will do for working families in New Zealand and I give it my wholehearted support. 
Peter Brown read out the five objectives of the bill and said New Zealand First could not vote against it. I do not need to repeat those five objectives. They were clearly put by an Opposition party member who could see through the National Party rhetoric and the ACT rhetoric and would support a good bill in this Parliament. That is Parliament working at its best. Members will find that the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament will support this bill. I predict that somewhere around 82 votes will support this bill. Does that mean most parliamentarians are right or wrong? In terms of a parliamentary majority it means most members in this House recognise legislation that will help families not only this year and next year but into the future. 
But that will happen only if there is a Government that supports the measures in the bill. The truth is out. The dried arrangement who is the Leader of the Opposition was on  
Holmes 
 tonight. I have never seen a more wooden performance in my life. He said that if people voted for Labour they would have these measures but if they did not vote for Labour they would not have them. Well there it is; it is out there. These measures will be gone “by lunchtime” should the National Party in coalition with the remnants of ACT—should ACT members get voted back in after Richard Prebble leaves—get back in Government. The truth is out: if people vote for National all the benefits in this bill will be gone. 
I know that New Zealanders are not silly. They will be listening to this debate. They will be weighing up the options. They will be looking at what the bill does for them and their families and they will be saying that the National Party has no commitment to families unless they earn heaps of money. If families earn heaps of money then National will give them more because it thinks those are the people who vote for it. National thinks that a family that earns $20000 $30000 $40000 $50000 or $60000 a year is not a hard-working family because if it was really hard-working it would earn more—it would have the ability to earn more. Who would be mowing those members’ lawns and looking after their gardens? Who would be taking away the rubbish they throw out every week? Who would be looking after their kids? Who would be teaching their kids? Who would be the nurses in the hospitals? Those people earn under $60000. They are the sorts of people who look for some payback in a Budget. 
I find it very interesting that it was OK for National when it was in power to give money back to families through family tax credits and family support. That is how it gives money to families—through tax credits and family support. Those people were not called beneficiaries when National gave them money but they are called beneficiaries when Labour gives them money. What hypocrisy! How can those people not be called beneficiaries when National puts money into tax credits and family support but the minute Labour puts some real money into those areas those people become beneficiaries? Well that two-faced approach can be seen through. National members cannot say that when National does it it is OK—it is good—but when Labour does it it is bad. If those people are called beneficiaries now they should have been called beneficiaries under National and that is the truth. 
So National should either face up to the fact that it would do something for families through a mechanism that gives them money or just admit that it would give money to the rich through tax cuts. Michael Cullen made it clear that if a Government wants to put that sort of money into families’ pockets it would have to exempt tax on families’ incomes up to $30000—no tax at all. That would mean I got a big tax break. That would mean that Maurice Williamson got a big tax break and John Key etc. etc. I listen to Maurice Williamson; he has always been an honest man. He has said that is excellent; he has said that it would be very good if he got a tax cut but not good if people who need more money got a tax cut or got more money in their pockets. 
I ask National this: is it all right to tax people and give them hip operations? Those members say it is not all right to tax people and give the money back to them in family support or family tax credits but is it all right to tax them and give them hip operations? Don Brash said in his speech that for months National had been advocating for families that for months it had been advocating for more operations. So we are allowed to tax and put that money into operations but we are not allowed to tax and put that money into families. That is a double standard. If we say the money belongs to the people—that taxes come from the people—we should then decide how to get the best benefit for the people. Well we say there is a lot of benefit in taxing people and giving them hip operations knee replacements and so on. We believe that is good expenditure of money. 
In fact one of the things I like about what this Government has done is that we say there are things we can do for families in terms of income and there are also things we can do for particularly our older people through operations like hip and knee replacements. We have said let us improve that; based on evidence based on research and working with the sector let us improve access to those operations so that our older folk have a better quality of life. The payback is that our older folk have a better quality of life; they are able to be mobile to go out and enjoy their grandkids. That is the sort of payback that should go back to our older New Zealanders. Their children have grown up but in terms of taxing people and putting that money where it is needed that is good use of money and that is what this Government has done. [ 
Interruption 
] Maurice Williamson does not want a hip replacement at the moment but I do not think he would want to pay $20000 or $30000 for a hip operation or a heart operation. Mind you he probably has private medical insurance but when he reaches 65 and his premiums are doubled or trebled he might not be able to afford that operation. Then of course he will not be a hard-working New Zealander so he will not deserve it. 
I found Richard Prebble’s speech one of the most interesting and one of the most disgusting. One of the things he said is that this Budget encourages breeding. Well it is absolutely certain that man has never had a baby. I do not know whether he has ever fathered a child. If he had he would know that one would need more than a few dollars to want to have a baby. I can see my colleague from New Zealand First nodding her head; she knows what I am saying. Any member who says that this Budget encourages people to breed is very very strange indeed. I do not know what sort of other inducement those members need to do other activities but I can assure members— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reference to the childless status of members of this House is not exactly encouraged. I recall not so very long ago the childless status of our Prime Minister being talked about in this House. The comments of the Minister are quite inappropriate. She should withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that disparaging remarks about members are made all the time in this House. It is the personal reflections that we have to be concerned about. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not know who has fathered children in this House and who has not. There was no reflection on Mr Prebble. I do not know whether he has fathered children. He may well have fathered many of them. After all another thing he said was to ask why the poor had children. I presume there was a time when he was poor. I presume that for most people—those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth—there was a time when they were poor. I believe that most people who have families do not have a lot of money when they are 20 25 or 30. They are buying a house and setting up their home. They have mortgages kids to pay for and clothes to pay for. They are not usually wealthy. Most people are not rich when they have families. Richard Prebble made the very strange comment: “Why do the poor have babies?”. Maybe that is something he can ponder into the future because he certainly will not be around very much longer to be able to make such stupid comments. 
I believe that this is an exceptionally good bill. It will give support to families that need it. But all that I have heard from the Opposition is knocking and nagging. We believe that Opposition members are the knockers and the naggers of this Parliament. There are plenty of knockers and naggers over there. Could they please give us just one policy?