Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13485] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am looking forward to hearing from Deborah Coddington but as I think we have gone through about 10 speakers from various parties it is important for me to begin to respond to some of what they have said. We began after Michael Cullen’s speech with Katherine Rich who in an almost ”Pythonesque” way continues to rise in the Chamber to ask what is in this Budget for working families. If one has ever seen the  
Life of Brian  
one will remember the wonderfully comic scene that always come to mind whenever Katherine rises in the Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to single names. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —to ask what is in the bill. All I can say in response is this: apart from the accommodation supplement childcare subsidy out-of-school care rates family support and in-work payment what is in this Budget for the working family? “All right” Katherine Rich would probably say “what is in this Budget apart from accommodation supplements in-work payments family support and out-of-school childcare for the ordinary working family?” Well I have to say there is even more: there is the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit. Katherine Rich would probably then say: “All right apart from all those things what is in this Budget for the working family?”. It all adds up to an average of about $66 for families earning between $25000 and $45000. That will go right up for that Waihi family although a member of that family will probably be standing for ACT at the next election. He or she may stand against us but even that family is about to have $150 coming into its household. So I would say to Katherine Rich that there is a lot in this Budget for those families. 
Mr Gerry Brownlee representing the National Party’s sudden concern for low-income families came into the Chamber and asked us how dreadful and how awful things could get. The  
New Zealand Herald  
has a headline that states this Budget is ‘One for the kids’ so Gerry Brownlee asked how awful things could get. If Katherine Rich is “Pythonesque” Gerry Brownlee is the  
Goon Show 
! It becomes incredible when we have National Party members come to the Chamber and say they would hate to have that headline about a future National Government’s Budget. I just ask every National Party spokesperson to please stand up and hold that headline against his or her head as he or she says that because we would love the cameras to come in and film them while they repeat the  
New Zealand Herald  
headline. I thank Gerry Brownlee for pointing that out. 
Richard Prebble asked why we are not sending this bill to a select committee. Also to leap forward to Dr Lockwood Smith’s contribution as I think we could call it he asked the same question. I will tell members why we are not doing so. We have to introduce rules and processes by 1 October in order to ensure we can begin to dispense money to people through the new changes. I have to have legislation through so that I can do that. That is the reason the money will be able to be distributed. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Whose money is it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is New Zealanders’ money. They pay taxes and they ask their Government to use that money wisely and we are doing just that. 
Mr David Carter asked why we do not have taxation cuts. He asked why we could not have a taxation cut across the board so all the hard-working well-off people could get more than the people who are hard-working but on a low income. He asked why we could not in National’s terms give 19c a week to low-income New Zealanders and $400 or $500 to Don Brash. I suppose once again we are happy to go to the people of New Zealand at the election whenever that may be and say that is the choice and they as an average New Zealand household can either have 19c from a taxation cut by the ACT-National coalition if it were in power or up to $160 from this coalition. I am happy to campaign on that so I hope Mr David Carter will carry on arguing for that. 
I thought Mr Catchpole gave a very good speech looking at how the different parts of this Budget would help education and business—all the practical things the Budget is intended to do. It was a good speech. I have not heard New Zealand First members getting up and speaking uncritically. They have asked us to bring the implementation dates forward and I put it on the record that we cannot do that because this is a Budget and the Budget allocates money in a time frame. Therefore we cannot have the money come forward. What we cannot do at the moment is to bring the dates forward in the way the member would like. I will skip over Dr Lockwood Smith because I have already mentioned his point. In relation to the Hon Maurice Williamson all I can say is that he has to let it go—the maritime legislation has been passed. It was passed a long time ago and he has to stop grieving. After a while he has to stop grieving and move on. If the Prime Minister were here she would say in a counselling kind of way: “Move on Mr Maurice Williamson you cannot keep grieving forever.” Mr Peter Brown once again made an excellent speech. It was largely about the implementation times and I have dealt with that. Judy Turner is always incisive about what is going on here in the Chamber. She is not uncritical of this bill. Members from those parties have always said they support this measure but they have something they would like to add to it. Sue Bradford has just done exactly that and I want to touch on the point she has made about temporary supplementary assistance which replaces special benefits. 
The issue regarding the replacement of the special benefit is very simple. When we came into office a very small group of people was getting access to the special benefit. There were people who should have been getting it but the National Party had been too mean to give it to them so we began to ensure they could receive it. All that meant was more and more people had to migrate into the third tier so they could get the income they should have been getting. We are paying about $63 million in special benefits at the present time and we are looking at forecasts of paying $70 million or $80 million. That is not the way to run a benefit system. People should not have to come up to the third tier to get their money from there. We are essentially moving all that money forward and saying that we want to return to the essential purpose of the special benefit which is to be temporary assistance when people are genuinely in hardship. As Bob Stephens said today at the Child Poverty Action Group breakfast this is a good move because it means paying money upfront. People should not now need to apply for those special benefits. Therefore we can return to the original purpose of that benefit which was temporary assistance when genuine hardship was being felt. I think that is a good move. We will see how we go but I think one can tell from the point of view of the Greens who are concerned about people getting their entitlements that we are being serious. We have moved from paying about $7 million in special benefits to about $63 million now and the figure is growing. We are trying to move all that money forward and to pay it to people earlier. 
I am about to sit down so that people can rip into this debate again but I do want to hear from the National Party and the ACT party about what they will do on 1 October this year when we allow changes to the accommodation supplement that will put more money into people’s pockets. I want to know whether the press releases from Deborah Coddington and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith are ready. When those changes come in on 1 October this year will those members be putting out a press release to voters stating that they would not give them the money? On 4 October when the childcare subsidy and the out-of-school care rates change which will put about $23 a week into households with children will the press releases be ready to go stating those members would not give that $23 a week to those people on 4 October? What about the changes to invalids benefits rules this year? The National Party says it wants to move those people off benefits and into work but it never says how it would do that apart from threatening to cut their benefits or to reassess them or whatever. When a positive move for getting more money for the invalids benefit is introduced in December this year will the National Party have press releases ready stating it would not give those beneficiaries more money? On 1 April next year when 260000 families receive a $25 increase in their family support will the National Party have press releases ready to go stating that no it would not allow those families to get $25 a week more or $15 a week more for each child? That is what I want to hear about from the National Party and ACT spokespeople. Will the press releases be ready in October in December and on 1 April next year when a bulk of money will go into those households? Let us hear whether those parties are ready to go and say that no New Zealanders will not get that money.