Collins Judith: Budget Debate 
Collins Judith: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3285] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I want to make it plain to the House that I will not attack the Hon David Cunliffe. He does such a good job of it himself that I really could not outdo him on that one. My goodness when we have one of those speeches delivered in the third party where one talks about oneself we always know one is in deep trouble—and he is. 
Seven years ago small business made up 85 percent of business in this country and this afternoon we heard Lianne Dalziel Minister for Small Business say it is now 96 percent of all business. Frankly that says it all. That is what has happened to business in this country: it has become smaller. Seven years ago Australians earned 20 percent more than New Zealanders did in their take-home pay. Now Australians earn 33 percent more in their take-home pay than New Zealanders do and that is a travesty. Seven years ago Helen Clark said this about the 20 percent gap: “We can no longer stand back and watch our best and brightest leave and take their ideas and now even their business with them. That recent TV1  
Assignment 
 programme on New Zealanders migrating to Australia conveyed the message that the last person leaving New Zealand should turn out the lights. That means it is time to act.” 
Helen Clark said that 7 years ago. Apparently according to Helen Clark that message was true when there was a 20 percent differential between the take-home pays of Australians and Kiwis—and I say it is more true now. Yet when the National Party in Opposition brings that issue to the fore it is accused of being unpatriotic. National members are accused of wanting to live in Australia. Today I heard Helen Clark tell Don Brash to go and live in Australia. That is what she said it is what she says to New Zealanders and that is what the previous speaker said. He told us all that if we did not like it here we knew where to go: we could go to Australia. 
But I think that perhaps Mr Cunliffe may not have remembered what Helen Clark told the Contractors Federation conference in her speech in August 1999. Here is another thing Helen Clark said in July of that year: “I for one would prefer New Zealand to have rates of growth and living standards akin to”—oh the member has guessed it! I ask the member which country she thinks it is. 
Paula Bennett 
: Australia. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —“Australia’s.” Helen Clark said that. That was very unpatriotic Dr Mapp. [ 
Interruption 
] What did the member say? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Vanuatu. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No unfortunately Miss Clark said the A-word—Australia. Was Miss Clark being unpatriotic? Well perhaps not. Perhaps she was just referring to the fact that New Zealand has for some years been lagging behind Australia in its after-tax money and New Zealanders want that situation to change but they do not want it to change for the worse. 
Darien Fenton 
: They want higher wages. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I think Ms Fenton has correctly pointed out that we do need higher wages in this country but I say to the member that makes a difference only by increasing our take-home pay. 
One of the ways to get higher wages into people’s pockets is to cut taxes so that they have an incentive to work because unfortunately not everybody earns $140000 has an iPod and can text their kids to tell them to come to the dinner table—as this Government seems to think is the normal standard for a family. That is the Government’s version of the Working for Families family: the family with parents who are so disengaged from their children that they have to text them to come to dinner as nobody can be bothered to walk across the room because—gosh—that might require effort. Those are the people whom this Government is targeting. It is not targeting people on $58000 a year who are trying desperately to get some more money for their family in order to pay off the mortgage or even to get a mortgage in the first place. It does not help first home buyers to buy a house does it? Nor does the Government help the single person who is struggling and working in a shop in Botany Downs just across from my electorate who is trying to get ahead on an income of $12 an hour. It does not help those people to want to do some overtime or to take on a second job. It does not help them to go off and get extra qualifications or to ask their bosses to pay them a better wage. 
One of the reasons this Government does not do those things is that it thinks people should have a relationship with the Government rather than with their employer. One of the things this Government has done through introducing the Working for Families package is to take the heat off those employers who do not want to pay people a decent wage. That package says that employers do not need to look at pay rates because the Government will just top up employees’ wages. It says that as long as employees have lots of kids the Government will just top up their wages. Well I say that is not good enough. And that is one of the reasons Lianne Dalziel has today admitted what has happened to medium business in this country: medium business has become smaller and big business has flown—apart from Guinness Peat Group which apparently receives special treatment. What sort of pork barrel politics is that? It is absolutely disgraceful. 
This Budget should have had some good welfare policy provisions in it. Unfortunately we are still awaiting the single core benefit. That benefit proposal has been around since 1989—it is 17 years. It is so old that in another year it will be able to vote. That policy has been brought out as a proposal every now and again to make up for the fact that this Government simply will not accept the fact that we have welfare dependency in this country. I have heard Ministers of the Crown particularly Ruth Dyson say there is no such thing as welfare dependency and ask what it is anyway. I suggest that she takes the shades off her eyes gets out there and has a look around. I am sure she can see it in her electorate. I am sure many of us can see it in our own electorates. There is intergenerational welfare dependency and nowhere is it worse than in the Maori community. The people who suffer are the people who have been conned into thinking all they can get is a welfare cheque. 
Anne Tolley 
: It’s patronising. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is worse than patronising; it writes off people’s potential. That is simply not good enough. To take a benefit shove it all together put a little pink bow around it and say it is something new will not make it anything more than what it is: welfare dependency. 
We hear a lot about the rate of unemployment in this country. I am pleased there is a low rate of unemployment but I am disgusted at the way this Government has shifted so many people off the unemployment benefit and on to the sickness benefit or the invalids benefit. That says to those people that they are just too sick to work. I do not believe for a moment that 112000 New Zealanders of working age are too sick to work. I think that is an absolute disgrace. As fast as the unemployment rate has been going down the sickness benefit and invalids benefit numbers have been going up. That does not solve anything. 
Another very tricky little thing this Government has done is to merge the Department of Child Youth and Family Services with the Ministry of Social Development. That was a disgrace. The way that took place was extraordinarily deceitful. When the State Services Commission was asked about the proposal in December of last year it said a merger would not benefit either Child Youth and Family Services or the Ministry of Social Development—that it would not help them—and that it would make the chief executive’s job almost untenable. One month later the State Services Commissioner had completely changed his mind and a merger had become the best thing since sliced bread. What happened? I wrote to the State Services Commissioner and asked him what had happened. Well he said he had changed his mind. It was Christmas. I wonder what was in the little stocking that made him change his mind. It was a most extraordinary response. I asked the Minister what the reasons were and the Minister said he had changed his mind. That is not a reason; it is a statement. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is that Benson-Pope? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No the Minister of State Services is Annette King. Did the member not know that? It is the same sort of thing. 
Nowhere in any of the reports that have been released has there been one statement about the benefit of the merger to our most vulnerable children. Frankly to this Government those vulnerable children are just numbers. Unfortunately for those of us who work in the area it is a very real and damning situation that a country like New Zealand has the most appalling rates of child abuse. That is absolutely unacceptable and just shoving a department like Child Youth and Family Services into the Ministry of Social Development to create an uber-ministry will not save the life of one little child. 
Anne Tolley 
: What’s that? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: An uber-ministry is a big ministry. I can use big words just like David Cunliffe can.