Dyson Ruth: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13447] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I can understand the member becoming slightly hysterical during his 5-minute presentation this evening because it must be quite distressing if one is required as an Opposition member to explain to the House and indeed the country what the Opposition has against hard-working families in New Zealand getting the financial support they deserve. I cannot understand the Opposition. I cannot understand what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has against hard-working families in New Zealand and I sympathise with him for being required to stand in this House and oppose the legislation. That is why I understand that he had to become hysterical in order to get up enough passion to oppose something that nobody in his or her right mind could possibly oppose. 
First of all I want to thank the Minister responsible for this bill Steve Maharey for his vision of social development in our country for his commitment to working that vision into the reality of this legislation and for his sheer hard work in ensuring the legislation is introduced tonight. I also give credit to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for leading this major investment in social development and in our families. They deserve it. They have probably been waiting for too long but we have delivered in a way that is affordable and sustainable and they deserve this legislation to be passed and progressed. 
I also thank and acknowledge the officials who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the detail of this legislation has the attention paid to it that it deserves so that we can progress it now and give our families the respect they deserve. 
I have known for a long time that both Richard Prebble and Maurice Williamson are frankly poll-driven fruitcakes. I understand that. Everyone accepts it as a fact. Richard Prebble and Maurice Williamson have always been warmly regarded as poll-driven fruitcakes. They do not have any principles they do not have any values they do not have any vision they do not have any commitment and now they are totally relying on the  
Holmes 
 show to elevate their blood pressure to a level at which they have both been able to participate in the House tonight. It was extraordinary to hear both of them speak. 
Hon David Carter 
: What happened on the  
Holmes 
 show? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not rely on any poll for my principles and my values. I never have and I never will. I know that working families in New Zealand deserve our support and I know that underneath it all so does Mr Williamson know that but it is his job as an Opposition MP to come along here and scrape whatever barrel he can find the bottom of in order to oppose it. 
The National Party’s policy is to oppose this bill. It opposes making work pay for parents who move off benefits into work. National members oppose that. They think that parents who move off benefits into work should not receive any financial recognition for that. They oppose increasing family income to address issues of income inadequacy. Why would they oppose that? Exactly. There is silence. There is no good reason at all. They oppose addressing accommodation affordability by responding to the increased cost of housing. Why would they oppose that? Exactly. There is no good reason at all. They oppose making childcare assistance an integral part of our social security system in recognition of its importance to families. Why would they oppose ensuring that childcare assistance was more accessible and affordable to families in New Zealand? There is no reason at all. 
They oppose simplifying the social security system. There is no logic in their opposition. There are no principles or values in their opposition. There is certainly no vision or commitment at all to any alternative. 
This bill recognises that low and middle income earning families in New Zealand work hard and that we should give them more support not less. The National Party and ACT policies state that we should not support those families with better childcare assistance we should not support them with better accommodation support and we should not look at family incomes to address inadequacies. That is what those parties say. They do not care about hard-working low to middle income families. I imagine that when one is earning well over $120000—or $1 million as the previous speaker acknowledged he was earning—it is a bit hard to imagine how a two-income family can survive on $30000 a year. It is hard for them to imagine how that family has to choose between the dentist and buying a new pair of shoes. That is what a number of low and middle income working families in New Zealand have to decide week after week and some have to go to a food bank or to Work and Income New Zealand to get special assistance. 
That is the real world of working families in New Zealand. That is the issue that this bill is addressing and it is the issue about which the National Party is saying: “We don’t care about them. We don’t think they deserve to get more support. We would have this bill gone by lunchtime.” So the National Party would reverse the changes. If National were ever the Government and if it were a particularly busy morning in the House it would have this legislation reversed by lunchtime. Then it would give tax cuts to people in this House—to people earning well over three times what people who are supported by this legislation are earning. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: John Key needs a tax cut. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think John Key earns a tax cut every day of the week—not. He does not deserve a tax cut. He does not deserve any financial support in comparison with the people who are getting support through this bill. Of course we would love to give everyone in New Zealand a tax cut but if it comes to priorities and what is more important in terms of driving our economy and assisting people who have income inadequacy that is the area of support that should take priority. Tax cuts to people who do not need them versus direct financial support to low and middle income working families just do not stand up at all. People who earn less in a year than those members opposite spend over a weekend are being denied that financial support by their opposition. 
 There is no logic to it. It is not even ideological. John Key can keep enjoying himself laughing at his own opposition to this but we do still have families in New Zealand that have to make the sorts of choices I mentioned. They have to think about whether they can afford to take their middle child or their youngest child to the dentist whether they can afford to buy a pair of new shoes or whether they can afford to buy gumboots to go out on the farm on the weekend and visit the farms of some of the members opposite. They do not own the farms but they might be able to visit them collect the eggs and work part-time for them. 
I want to draw the attention of the House to one particular aspect of the bill that relates to invalid beneficiaries. It is on page 11 of the explanatory note. People on invalids benefits in New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say regarding interjections that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected on has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call. It is happening too often and too frequently. Please show some courtesy to the member speaking. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We have a number of people on invalids benefits in New Zealand. They are on invalids benefits because they are not able to work for 15 hours a week or more. Our social security system has lost touch with advanced technology with growing expectations and with growing demand from people with disabilities in New Zealand who now know they have a right to support and a right to employment. Our benefit system in the past has denied them that and in fact has offered financial disincentives for people on invalids benefits to work. This bill fixes that problem. This is a major and positive step forward for people on invalids benefits who previously have said: “How can I work? I will be financially worse off if I do.” 
I want particularly to congratulate the Minister on this initiative for thousands of people around New Zealand who are on invalids benefits. This says to them: “Our future contribution in the paid workforce will not only be literally valued but it will be financially recognised as well.” I know that many people will be wanting to take advantage of this change. This bill is designed for people on invalids benefits for people on sickness benefits for people on other benefits and for our low to middle income working families. 
The National Party and the ACT party can oppose it as much as they like. They do not represent working families in New Zealand. They do not speak in this House for working families in New Zealand. They deny them the financial recognition and support they deserve. It is those people who deserve a voice in this Parliament and who deserve the financial support that our situation can afford to offer them.