Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2409] 
10.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by his statement that “Labour is targeting tax credits where they are needed” and does he believe a back-bench MP with five children and no earning spouse should be eligible to apply for extra welfare assistance because they need it? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 A hard-working Kiwi family with five children that earns $118000 whether they be builders tradespeople nurses teachers or whatever is entitled to at least $20 per week in tax credits under Working for Families. That should be compared with the much higher tax credit that is available to families with children on more modest incomes. Of course it needs to be noted that that member’s tax policies would impoverish working families through cuts to basic social services like health and education while giving her a personal tax break of over $220 per week. 
Heather Roy 
: How can he possibly claim that the Working for Families package is the best way to help hard-working Kiwis when they are taxed hard have their money washed through the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income and then have to apply to get some back when he should just let people keep more of what they earn in the first place? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can do that easily. I am pleased to inform that member that even before the current roll-out 196500 families received assistance of on average $108 as the previous part of this package. The announcements on Saturday we believe will support a further 85000 New Zealand families. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What recent reports has he seen regarding the impact of the 1 April changes to Working for Families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen a report in the  
Dominion Post 
 of 23 March which was written by Charles Waldegrave the joint leader of the New Zealand Poverty Measurement Project. He described Working for Families in the following way: “These are not welfare benefits. They represent a recognition by the Government that families with children have higher costs.” He goes on: “Tax cuts across the board would not invest in children in the same way. Furthermore to the extent that they could help families they would invest more in the children of the wealthy rather than those on low and middle incomes.” 
John Key 
: Is it a good use of his parliamentary budget and time to spend his energy writing to a member of Parliament who is married to a partner in a law firm and who has only one child to encourage that member to seek assistance under Working for Families when by my calculations that member is about 25 to 30 kids short of being eligible? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: One of the key differences between the Government and the Opposition is that this Government is keen to ensure that people get their entitlements. It is hard to get past the fact that the average Kiwi family would have been $70 a week worse off under a National Government. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is the Government so determined to continue with its discrimination against the children of beneficiaries by denying them and only them some of the benefits of the Working for Families package while the package at the same time increases taxpayer assistance to middle and high-income families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As I have answered the question on at least previous two occasions one of the first steps in the Working for Families package was an increase of an estimated $32 a week to the families of beneficiaries. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister believe that there is an inherent contradiction in the position espoused by the ACT party when on the one hand it denigrates as welfare tax reductions extended with United Future support to 196500 working families but on the other hand it attempts to label the much smaller tax reductions it proposed for those families as some kind of low-tax heaven? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do feel rather constrained by the restrictions of acceptable parliamentary language in answering that question. But I do not think the irony escapes many people that someone complaining about a possible $20 entitlement would be prepared to take $92 or $220 under ACT policies. 
Heather Roy 
: Were the Minister and his Government inspired by Robin Hood when they invented this scheme and when did it become the policy of this socialist Labour Government to rob from the poor to give to the rich? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: For my answer I turn to the words of the Fe’ao family with six children aged between 2 and 17 who were reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 a couple of days ago. Their mother Sepi said she would use the extra money—around $400 a week—as follows: “They are going to have some fruit to take to school for their lunch. We can’t afford much fruit at the moment … They will be able to get good clothes and shoes. I have to look for second-hand shoes for them to wear to school and the cheaper ones get broken more easily.” 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister ever drawn to the ACT party’s attention the fact that the targeted support for families delivered through the family support mechanism was in fact introduced by Roger Douglas the founder of the ACT party? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No but I am happy that the Minister has given me the opportunity do so. I would like to reinforce the fact that this sort of targeting is common practice and is the best way of delivering this sort of support right across the OECD. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table a letter addressed to Mr and Mrs Blumsky encouraging them to seek assistance from Working for Families even though they are 30 kids short of the threshold. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Seeing as the Minister of Finance has put Roger Douglas’ name into the ring I see leave to table the comments made by the Hon Roger Douglas about his successor at the present time Mr Hide as an edification of the political process gone wrong. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those comments. Is there any objection? There is.