Roy Heather: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13102] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 There is no doubt in my mind that the sponsor of this bill Sue Bradford is very well meaning in her attempts to address childhood poverty. Over the tea break I canvassed a few opinions on the family benefit. The first person I came across said: “I used to love having the family benefit. It was usually paid into the women’s accounts so that the men did not get their hands on it and women would beaver it away. I used to spend mine on getting my hair or nails done when I felt like it. It was great and I loved it.” The long and short of it is that the family benefit was never intended for that. It was intended to be spent on families. 
The explanatory note in the bill states that its purpose is to restore a benefit that is necessary for the protection and development of New Zealand children. The shame of it is that this bill will not address that issue. A universal family benefit will certainly not achieve that. There is no way that childhood poverty can be addressed in that regard. This benefit is intended not only for low-income families but also for every other family in the country mine included. I have five children and according to this bill I would receive $15 for my oldest child and $10 each for the other four—that is a total of $55 a week. I agree that for many low-income families that is a lot of money but for families such as mine—there are a large number of them in the country and I will come to that in a moment—it just is not necessary. I would rather that $55 went towards hip operations or looking after children who lived in poverty-stricken situations. 
If this bill were to become law 16257 families with one child would receive the family benefit 19569 families with two children would receive it 8493 families with three children and 2304 families with four or more dependent children would receive it. That is a sum total of over 46000 families receiving an income of $100000 or more a year. I wonder how Miss Bradford feels about families such as these—and it would amount to quite a sum over a period of time—being given that amount of money when there are much better places for it go. 
The ACT party of course would much rather see a lowering of taxes across the board to compensate families in this way. It is much better that people have the money to spend on whatever is necessary for themselves than having the Government spending it on their behalf. It makes very little sense that these working families pay their taxes then the money is filtered through various systems and the social welfare department gives it back to them in a rather obscure way. The route itself is very costly and it is hard to determine exactly what value of the money originally paid out in taxes would filter its way back to these families. 
It is an unreasonable expectation that this bill will see the protection and development of New Zealand families particularly poverty-stricken families. There is no assurance that those families will spend the money on their children. We know from when the family benefit was around previously that in many cases that was not the case. The wealthier families were more likely to dedicate that benefit to their children by putting it in bank accounts or whatever than the poorer families who often spent it on things other than those that benefited their children. 
For these reasons the ACT party will oppose the bill. We would rather that the Government addressed the issue of lowering taxes in its Budget next week rather than trying to find other ways of supporting families. There is little doubt that New Zealanders are by far the best qualified to spend the money on their own behalf and that is certainly what we would like to see.