Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): That was an interesting but disappointing speech from the previous speaker Stuart Nash. He could not pinpoint and could not speak against any part of the bill. In fact he acknowledged a lot of it. He acknowledged that the bill does affect those who are least well off. He does accept that Working for Families and the accommodation supplement does affect those people. But unfortunately the disappointing thing is he is going to vote against the bill.I would like to commend if I can the Green Party for having the balls to vote for this bill. I do not want to sound patronising or condescending because I know that that party does care for those who are least well off. It talks about it all the time in this House and I commend it for supporting the bill because it knows that this bill affects one-third of the children who are currently in households earning half of the average wage.Brett Hudson: That's right. Median wage.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Median wage. In those households that are earning less than half of the median wage we will be pulling 50000 kids out of that situation one-third of those who are currently categorised as children in poverty by that particular measure. That is a good thing—that is a good thing.Some of the Labour members have also supported the notion of Working for Families which is also a good thing. They have also talked about the accommodation supplement. Mr Phil Twyford was wrong when he said the accommodation supplement only subsidises the landlord. If we wanted to subsidise the landlord it would be very simple; we would simply adjust depreciation rates for example on buildings back to allowing depreciation rates of some sort which would flow directly to the landlord. That would be a subsidy for the landlord.This is not a subsidy for the landlord. The accommodation supplement goes directly to the tenant—goes directly to the tenant. That tenant can choose on what and how to spend that money. I have no doubt that it will be focused and spent on the increasing rentals that we on this side of the House understand have occurred. So people who were in category 1 and people who now will be in category 1—the number of people has doubled. The number of people who will receive the accommodation supplement in category 1 has doubled. But these guys on that side do not support it—they do not support it. They do not support Working for Families and of course—Hon Members: Ha ha!ALASTAIR SCOTT: —will not vote for it; unfortunately they do not want tax cuts. By definition or by a consequence of what they have said the one thing they do want—unspoken implicit—is tax increases. They want to increase taxes for those in the higher income bracket. They have said that this bill gives money to the rich; those who earn over $52000. Those people who earn over $52000 will get more money and that is true and they do not like it. They do not want ordinary Kiwis to aspire to earn more and to put more in their pockets and the only way that they are going to manage to balance their increased spending is by taxing—by increasing taxes. Watch—in their policies in their Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs)—I absolutely expect an SOP that demonstrates that all they want to do is raise taxes to allow for an increased spending that will always be and always will be excessive and expensive. That is exactly why people can see straight through the rhetoric from that side of the House. Ordinary New Zealanders—those who are least well off—are more affected and that is why this is an excellent bill and I commend it alongside the Greens and this side of the House to the House.