Roy Heather: Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill Taxation (Working for Families) Bill — Third Readings 
Roy Heather: Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill Taxation (Working for Families) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:617;Page:13529] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will be opposing this legislation so the Minister will not be disappointed. I should point out that we oppose this legislation for several reasons but the first one that is certainly worthy of note is the way in which the Government as it has several times during this session of Parliament is showing yet again its contempt for the democratic process. Despite the staggered commencement dates that the Government has put forward for the introduction of many parts of this legislation it has insisted on having this bill heard through all its stages in urgency. There will be no select committee process no public scrutiny and no time for the Opposition to look carefully at the pitfalls in this legislation that the Government obviously is not the least bit interested in. The Government is exhibiting yet again its “don’t worry New Zealand we know best just do as we tell you” attitude. This is wrong. The New Zealand public knows it is wrong and will vote accordingly at the next election. 
Our other concerns are of a much more fundamental nature. We should completely ignore Mr Maharey’s very clever words about social justice and social development. In fact we should point out that this legislation is about social engineering. It is about engineering the social fabric of New Zealand society. At the end of the day this legislation will mean that more New Zealand families will be dependent on the State. This legislation is about welfare dependency. It is about vote buying. 
This Labour Government is very happy to have New Zealanders dependent on the State. When people are dependent on the State they are not about to vote for somebody else. That is what the legislation is all about—welfare dependency. Time and time again ACT New Zealand has railed against welfare dependency. There are much better ways of going about promoting families in New Zealand society progressing New Zealand and ensuring that we have strong economic growth. This Budget is a tax-and-spend Budget and the legislation to support it will not achieve any of the visions that ACT has for New Zealand’s future. 
It is worth taking a moment or two to look at some of the comments that the Minister in charge of the legislation Mr Maharey made when he was debating it. He said that New Zealanders are excited about it. I look around this House and I do not see a great deal of excitement. The place where I see the least excitement is on the Government benches. There is not a great deal of excitement in the press gallery. Where have the journalists gone? They know what the legislation is about and they will be reporting that. Then there is the  
Holmes 
 show poll. Are New Zealanders out in the provinces excited about this legislation? No. In one newspaper report today about this legislation one man said: “This is not enough.” In fact there are many reports of a similar nature. That is the trouble with welfare dependency in this country—there is never enough. When people are dependent on the Government when they have their hands out expecting money to come to them there is never enough. 
Hon Member 
: And they’re never grateful either. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is entirely right. We need to make people responsible for themselves. We need to encourage people to be responsible for themselves. People can spend their own money more wisely than the Government can on their behalf. 
New Zealand First members made some very interesting comments during the debating process. Mr Maharey was nodding his agreement and shouting out in support of them at one point. They said that this bill would help people to get into work. But not surprisingly not one person stood up in the debate and said how that would happen. The reason for that is simple—there is not an answer. How will anything in this legislation help people get into work? It will not. It does not help business which creates the wealth in the country that would help people get into work. 
Mr Cullen stood up yesterday and said that there is a $6 billion surplus. I agree with the National Party member Katherine Rich that Mr Cullen had a golden opportunity yesterday that he turned down. It would have cost the Government $5.5 billion of that $6 billion surplus to implement a 20 percent flat tax rate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh! 
HEATHER ROY 
: Dr Cullen groans because he knows that it is correct. That 20 percent flat tax rate would include personal and company tax rates—a 20c in the dollar flat tax rate. Imagine the business that would come back to New Zealand if our tax rate was 10c in the dollar less than Australia’s. Business would flow back to this country there would be more jobs than we knew what to do with and families would flourish and prosper. This legislation perhaps more than any other legislation we have debated in the time I have been in the New Zealand Parliament shows the differences in attitudes to the fabric of New Zealand society. 
Government Members 
: Yes! 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am glad that Government members agree with me. In fact it was the Hon Damien O’Connor who first pointed this out. We have a Labour Government that likes telling people how to live their lives. It is happy to assist people in doing that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Socially develop them. 
HEATHER ROY 
: The Government socially develops them. It hands out money so that people become dependent on the State. Why does the Labour Government want State dependency? It is so that the people who are dependent on it will vote for it. Government members are in trouble and they know it. 
However on this side of the House we know what it is to have responsibility for oneself and for one’s actions. We know how that benefits people. We know the value of having a safety net not a safety hammock that traps so many people in it that one cannot tell the needy from those who are capable of taking responsibility for themselves looking after themselves working for themselves and providing for their own families. This country needs a safety net not a safety hammock. All that this Budget and this legislation will achieve for the 300000 families it is making dependent on the State is a safety hammock. It is trapping them further and further into dependency. 
If we look briefly at the main objectives of the legislation firstly it is to make work pay for parents who move off benefits into work and to increase family income. Let me tell members opposite that lower taxes would have done that in a much more fiscally responsible way and in a way that is much more responsible for individuals. It was interesting to watch some of the television commentators yesterday discussing the legislation as the provisions in the Budget unfolded. In fact Chris Trotter has some very interesting comments to make. He said that he could not really work out what the details of the Budget were. He said that the most interesting point—and this is very pertinent—is that people must apply for every different step of the provisions within the legislation. They will not. I predict that approximately 20 percent of people will find the system cumbersome complicated and will have a great deal of difficulty applying for the provisions. That may be what the Government wants. It does not want people to cost it more money. A tax cut would automatically have gone to every working family in this country. 
The other benefit of tax cuts of course is that they do not cost the country a huge amount of money. Every time we churn money through Government departments—and I am talking in an administrative sense—we lose approximately 10 percent at every step. We have people working the money goes from tax to social security and 10 percent is lost at every step.