Dyson Ruth: Budget Debate 
Dyson Ruth: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16496] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 That was a tired speech from a tired member of a tired and embarrassed party. The National Party is slip-sliding all over the show on every fundamental policy that this country wants to hear about in this critical election year. On the most recent occasion my Canterbury colleague Kate Wilkinson admitted to an audience in front of parliamentary colleagues and senior reputable political journalists that the National Party would get rid of the compulsory employer contribution to KiwiSaver. For many people the KiwiSaver scheme is their big chance for help into their first homes and with the additional costs that people face in their retirement. 
Kate Wilkinson—who frankly not many people outside the House had heard of prior to yesterday—announced at a breakfast meeting that National did not believe in compulsion so the compulsory contribution from employers would go. Well John Key did not like his policy being announced so the next minute he said that that was not his policy. He was asked what his policy was and he said that he did not actually have one but what Kate Wilkinson said was not it. John Key’s position is that National does not have a policy; he is still working on it. Kate Wilkinson will not be part of the team that is working on it regardless of whether she is National’s spokesperson on labour. She is the National Party spokesperson on industrial relations. 
The employer contribution towards KiwiSaver is a critical issue for workers unions and employers when they are negotiating future pay increases and it is critical to the ability of low-paid workers in particular to save for the future. So what is John Key’s position? Who knows? New Zealanders up and down the country say to me that they want to know clear policy before the election. They do not want John Key’s slip-sliding policy which is different every day. In fact we had an example yesterday when John Key changed his position during a question in the House backed up by Bill English. It was quite extraordinary. I have become used to National members changing their position from one week to the next but changing position between a primary question and a supplementary question really takes the cake. 
The member who resumed her seat just prior to my taking the call Judith Collins reminded the House of a word we are not allowed to use. I am not surprised that she constantly thinks of words like that. She and her party voted against the single biggest redistribution of wealth in our country when taxpayer funds were moved to the most vulnerable families in our community through the Working for Families package. 
Allan Peachey 
: You’re not boasting about that are you? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I say to Mr Peachey that the combination of that package and increased employment has lifted 130000 New Zealand children out of poverty. 
Children under the previous National Government were living in poverty because of National’s benefit cuts. Benefits were never adjusted to reflect the price of living nor was the minimum wage increased. I apologise that is not true. It is not true to say that during the 9 long years of the previous National Government the minimum wage was not increased. It was increased once because its coalition partner New Zealand First ensured that it would be increased. Even with New Zealand First pushing for an increase the total increase in the minimum wage—which is paid to literally our lowest-paid workers—over the whole 9 years was 87.5c an hour. 
Sue Moroney 
: How much? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There was an 87.5c an hour increase in the minimum wage in 9 years. I ask Mr Peachey how that could be justified in a time of what he would describe as a strong economy. We in New Zealand now know what a strong economy is but we also know what responsible management of our economy is. We know that the benefits of our strong economy are going towards the people who were it not for a Labour-led Government would not be able to get that financial support. 
Working for Families has an automatic threshold adjustment; it is in the legislation. We are bringing that adjustment forward because we have heard from our constituents about the additional pressures they are facing at the moment. We are facing an international situation in terms of petrol prices. Our dairy products are receiving very good prices overseas and our farmers do not want to give discounts locally—tragically we do not get a better deal because we happen to live in the country where those fine dairy products are produced. We know that families are feeling pressure because of that. 
I will give members an example of the Working for Families entitlements that will increase from 1 October this year. A two-earner family with two children under 13—with the dad earning $45000 and the mum earning $20000—will receive a $42.76 increase per week from 1 October. That would not be able to be matched by the National Party because it is very clear from the statements made by its leader John Key that his priority will be to ensure that the people who earn the most money in our country get the big tax cuts. Those are not the people who need it. John Hayes has been on public record as saying not only that this should happen but also that it will happen under a National-led Government. That is not what a Labour Government would support. 
Our Working for Families package has been incorrectly described as supporting only those in paid work. That is only one of the four components. It has a family tax credit for every child whether his or her parent is a beneficiary or in paid work; it has a childcare subsidy; it has an accommodation supplement; and it has the in-work tax credit which is specifically designed to recognise the cost of work and to ensure that work pays. We can now ensure as a result of our strong support and focus that people who are able to work are supported into paid work. There are 140000 fewer people on a benefit and not just on one benefit but on all working-age benefits. 
Labour has increased the minimum wage every single year and this year it reached an agreement with the Green Party and New Zealand First of $12 an hour. Because of the promotion of Sue Bradford from the Green Party young people have to work for only a very short period of time before they get recognition for the work they are doing and go on to the same rate as an adult. Labour has ensured that the benefit is adjusted every year in accordance with the CPI level. That ensures that our beneficiaries have the relativity of their income matched with the increasing cost pressures that they might be facing. 
The final point I want to make is in relation to older New Zealanders and the absolute joy that this Budget brings for them. We have done very well for superannuitants in New Zealand and we have a very long list of achievements. Tragically I cannot take a second call in this Budget so I will not go through them all now. The combination includes an increase in New Zealand superannuation firstly to 65 percent as a result of Labour’s commitment then subsequently for a married couple that will be lifted to 66 percent of the net average wage in accordance with Labour’s agreement with New Zealand First. Of course we have adjusted the portability which gives people better security as they return to their home countries. In respect of the personal tax cuts that were the highlight of the benefit superannuitants will receive an additional $45.88 for a married couple per fortnight from 1 October. That is a significant increase in their budget. 
Bob Clarkson should be interested in that increase because his current constituency has a large number of superannuitants and I am pleased that for once he is able to support good policies and not be inappropriately whipped into line with bad calls from his leader and his whips. In fact over the next 6 months I look forward to seeing people who are clearly frustrated with their lack of involvement in policy and the lack of use of their talents within the National Party—the Mark Blumskys the Kate Wilkinsons and the Bob Clarksons of the world—standing up more to their leadership and demanding a right to have a say in the development of policy. [ 
Interruption 
] Jackie Blue might not think much of Bob Clarkson Mark Blumsky and Kate Wilkinson but other members do think they should have a say in the development of National Party policy and they certainly should know what that policy is when it has been agreed on. 
When the National Party comes to a clear decision on KiwiSaver on tax and on Working for Families I and other members of the New Zealand community look forward to hearing it.