Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2290] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 My colleague John Key has just interjected by pointing out that 5 minutes can be a long time when one has to listen to someone like Minister Cunliffe. This Labour Government’s Working for Families package is a serious issue. One of what the Government claims to be its main aims is exactly this: “Make work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work.” I want David Cunliffe to reflect on these facts—and I will quote figures from the annual report of the Inland Revenue Department—given that aim of making work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be happy to seek leave to take a further call as the member suggested should he wish. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. The member should not interrupt other members’ speeches by making points of order that are not points of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I thought the member was asking me to seek leave and I am happy to do so in order to explain the point he raised. I seek leave to take a further call to explain the point the member raised. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I want that arrogant Minister to listen to this. If this policy is about helping people get into work then I want to explain these facts. Take a woman who has three children who is on a benefit such as the domestic purposes benefit and who is trying to get into work. At $10000 of earned income she will still receive most of her domestic purposes benefit. Very little of it is abated away. She will still get almost the full domestic purposes benefit if she is earning $10000. To be independent of the domestic purposes benefit and to really get into work where she will be independent of that benefit she has to earn over $25000 a year. So she has to go from $10000 of earned income to $25000 of earned income. It is then that she is really in work because at that point she is virtually independent of the domestic purposes benefit. 
I want David Cunliffe to tell this House how much he thinks that woman gets to keep of the extra $15000 she earns. I will tell him what she gets to keep. Of that extra $15000 she would have to earn to become independent of the domestic purposes benefit that member’s Government takes $13845 of it and leaves her with $1155—and he calls that helping poor people! 
John Key 
: He thinks it’s funny. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: He thinks it is funny—and he thinks it is going to be all right. 
I want the next Labour speaker to tell us how that is helping people get into work and making work pay. When people try to get off benefits and try to become independent of the benefit system and be in full-time work that Minister’s rapacious Government takes through that entire income range— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: We’re giving it away. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Giving it away? The Government is taking it from them! As those people work harder and harder to try to attain the dignity of earning their own income for their children that Minister’s Government through that entire income range from $10000 of earned income through to $25000 of earned income takes 92c of every dollar they earn. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier the member asked me to take another call then refused leave for me to do that. I wonder whether he is trying to ignore the fact that wherever the threshold is there will be an abatement effect—unless he advocates a universal benefit. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. That is not a point of order. It is a debatable issue and I remind members that frivolous interjections designed to break up a speech are out of order and will not be tolerated. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I know that members opposite are embarrassed about this because they claim to actually care about poorer working people. It is a disgrace. Someone mentioned debating points but the figures I am quoting are the Inland Revenue Department’s figures on this great Working for Families package. That is what this Government is doing. 
OK the Government might be going to give some of this money to someone in an $800000 house with kids who have iPods cellphones and what have you but if it cares about those poorer people on benefits who are trying to work to earn more so they can stand on their own feet then it is a disgrace to take that money from them. When those people go to all that trouble to earn the $15000 they need to get off the benefit and the Government takes almost $14000 of that $15000 from them leaving them and their children with just $1155 of the $15000 earned I think it is a disgrace. Labour members have gone quiet now because that is nothing to crow about. It is shameful. 
What is more the Inland Revenue Department’s figures show that it is not just the way the Government is taxing these people that is a disgrace; the churning and waste is also a disgrace.