Williamson Maurice: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13453] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 What a very sad time it is for the New Zealand Parliament! I can remember a time about 14 years ago when the “mother of all Budgets” was read in this very Chamber. The front row of the Government defending that Budget consisted of the Prime Minister Jim Bolger the Deputy Prime Minister Don McKinnon and the Minister of Social Welfare Jenny Shipley. The entire Cabinet sat on the benches; those members were there to defend a Budget that had to be done because the Labour Government that had gone out of office the year before had wrecked the economy and had left no option. What do we see in the front row tonight? We have Steve Maharey we have I hate to say Matt Robson—I am sorry about that—and I can see Marian Hobbs as well. That is all that is left here defending the absolutely indefensible. 
Two or three questions need to be asked. By the way let us clarify the National Party position because members want it clarified: we are voting against this legislation. We do not say that we will repeal it; what we say is that we will replace it. We do believe that there needs to be assistance to some people within the community but what this bill is doing—members talk about Monty Python; this Budget should be called the “Python Budget”—is taking huge sums of money billions of dollars from ordinary working New Zealanders to make a surplus and Michael Cullen somehow gloats that he is a great Minister because he has taken so much money off ordinary New Zealanders. I do not think that is anything to gloat about or even to start to gloat about. Then he says that in a couple of years’ time—after the next election that is—he will give some actually quite a small sum of it back to a certain group of people who could be classified as predominantly but not solely Labour Party voters. That is why the poll tonight on  
Holmes 
 showed that for every one person that loves it four hate it. That is 20 percent in favour which is about where the Labour Party is polling at present as far as I can remember. Twenty percent love it and 80 percent hate it. 
I got really scared yesterday when I saw the panic that set in when Labour realised that the last Colmar Brunton poll on Sunday night showed it was dropping even further in public opinion and falling behind. We had this enormous announcement that anyone who wants a hip replacement or knee surgery can have it. I hoped that Labour would not drop any further in the polls or it would become compulsory to get a hip replacement and have one’s knees done. It was the most desperate move of a Government that is in trouble. 
And what is this measure? This is the exact same move. This is not an attempt to relieve the burden on ordinary middle-class New Zealanders. No this is saying “Why don’t we tax the hell out of all New Zealanders as hard as we can then put some crumbs back on the table of one in five families?”. For that reason alone the National Party I am proud to say will both vote against this bill and when the new National Government is elected next year—and from the way it is going if Labour keeps falling like it is it will be a majority sole National Government which will not even need to look at coalitions because that is how bad that lot is—replace it with a properly targeted package of assistance for those hard-working middle-income families who have been beaten around. 
So what do the Labour Party members do tonight? They try to personalise this by referring to some of us. I admit that every one of us in Parliament is at the high end of income earners but that is not what we are talking about here tonight. No one is talking about giving tax breaks to people earning over $100000 which includes every one of us in this House. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. There are a couple of questions that I still have not heard an answer to. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The outrage from the other side of the House is completely unacceptable. It comes from a certain sector that tonight has been very vocal. I ask that you direct that member in particular the senior Labour whip to tone down her comments. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think there has been a fair bit of cross-interjection. I think it does need to be toned down a bit so that the speaker can be heard. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am very very comfortable with Labour’s opposition tonight because I have never seen such a limp-wristed hopeless pathetic attempt to justify something. On the night of the Budget those benches should be packed and those members should be crowing about what they have done. 
But there are a couple of things I want some answers to and I think this is really important. I think New Zealanders will see this Budget for what it is by this one issue alone: every time I have been in this Parliament under urgency on a Budget night it was to pass legislation that affected people as of midnight that night. That is why we go into urgency. The clock stops we stay on today’s date and we do that because we are making changes to the tax system—we are making changes to petrol tax we are making changes to benefit schemes—as of midnight. My question is and I have heard it asked many times so far whether this bill changes anything as of midnight tonight. 
Opposition Members 
: No! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: All right that is clear. The answer is no. So do the changes happen tomorrow? No. In the weekend? No. In a week’s time? No. It does not have any impact until October. This bill could have been done in the normal time frame that every other bill is done in. So why would the Government call urgency? Because it thought that it had this neat momentum that it was on a roll with the Budget. 
John Carter 
: What did the  
Holmes  
show say? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Carter should not feed me these lines; it is too good to miss. What I loved tonight is that this poll was from the television channel that is charter-funded. We are talking about the “bean-sprouts and batik brigade” channel the “sandal-wearers and kaftan-wearers” channel—Television One. Hardly a Tory would watch Television One the State channel. And what did the poll show? I have heard this Labour Government often refer to  
Holmes  
polls saying for instance: “We saw on the  
Holmes 
 poll last night that the Government is moving in the right direction.” In the first 3 years to give those members some credit it was pretty hard to lay a glove on them. But tonight when that  
Holmes 
 poll showed that only one in every five New Zealanders— 
John Carter 
: No! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is right—one in every five. Guess what? It is an incredible coincidence. Members should guess what the coincidence is and see whether they can spot it. This Budget favours one in every five families and the vote tonight in New Zealand was that one in every five supports it. I tell this Government that at the next election it will get one in every five votes. In fact I think it will be lucky to get that because a few will bail out on the way. But to be fair—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right—one in every five votes. That is what the Government will get because this is a cynical move and it is seen by the public as a cynical move. 
Let us get this very clear: this is not giving people anything. What it is doing is letting them have back a small amount of what was taken from them in the first place. Anyone can be a Robin Hood. Anyone can rip money off people then say: “Guess what I’m going to be kind. I’ll give you back a bit.” We accept there needs to be a targeted assistance programme we accept the focus needs to be on getting people back into work but we think this is the biggest miscue that has ever been made—and so does that Government because if it thought it was right we would see that front bench riddled with all its senior Ministers. They would all be taking the call and defending it but they cannot defend the indefensible. 
My last question to those members is this: if this is such a great scheme how come 5 years have gone by—5 whole years—and they ask whether the National Party would repeal it? It is just a disgrace.