Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill Taxation (Working for Families) Bill — Third Readings 
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill Taxation (Working for Families) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:617;Page:13524] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 My colleague Steve Maharey referred to the opposition to this legislation earlier in the debate as lacklustre. Well that was a very generous description. The member who has just resumed her seat has taken lacklustre to being an art form. In fact if was a still-life art form I think we would describe it as lacklustre on a lean. She was hardly able to hold herself up for the entire duration of her speech. Frankly most of us had difficulty staying awake as well. 
The Opposition should know by now that just because it is called the Opposition does not mean it has to oppose everything particularly when it is something that is good. There is nothing about providing working families with financial support better assistance through the accommodation supplement and better assistance with childcare that is worthy of their being voted against let alone spoken against. All of those things should be supported. But it is not surprising that we now have a demonstration of the pure ideology of the extremists within the National Party. Lockwood Smith Katherine Rich and Maurice Williamson are clearly the extreme right wing of the National Party. They are the only people who are able to rise in this debate and oppose this legislation. 
Katherine Rich seems to resent working families in New Zealand. She pays her taxes so it should all go back to her! She seems to be the only hard-working mother in the country! I am sure she was too proud to take paid parental leave from the Government; that would have been an insult to her independence. I am sure she is too proud to take 3 weeks’ paid holiday. I am sure she is too proud to take a salary frankly. It would be so demeaning to earn a salary; she would much rather be totally independent. Well I say to Mrs Rich that she is not the only hard-working mother in this country and I am very very pleased that many others benefit from the legislation we are going to pass later on today. 
I particularly look forward to the National Party campaigning during the election period against this legislation. I want to go around the country listening to Katherine Rich explain to a two-parent one-income family with four children that earns $55000 that this legislation is wrong. This legislation will give them $70 from 1 April next year $110 from 2006 and $150 from the year after. I would like to hear Katherine Rich tell those people that that is wrong and that it would be much better to give them a 20 percent tax rate which would give them $39 a week. I would like Mrs Rich to explain that and I hope that she explains that the reason she supports that tax cut instead of our social development proposals in this legislation is that she works hard and she should get back more of her taxes. That is what that member said to members earlier today. 
It is a great honour to be part of this debate and to be in one of the many parties in this Parliament that are supporting the legislation to have come from the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill. I want to acknowledge the Labour-Progressive team here but I also acknowledge that we are being supported on this legislation by United Future the Green Party and New Zealand First. That is quite unusual and it is a particularly proud moment for all members of New Zealand First for them to be able to say: “We looked at the legislation we understood the intent and we are going to support it.” The members of all those parties can now go around the country and say: “We back working families.” 
We support social justice. We say that the many hard-working families around New Zealand deserve ongoing support and when our financial circumstances mean we can increase that support we should do so. Working families deserve support. They have worked hard and they are getting that additional support in this legislation. The issue of social development is one that clearly has totally bypassed the National Party and ACT. They would not understand the term so it is no wonder they oppose its implementation in this legislation. But social development does make a real difference to people’s independence their self-esteem and their ability to earn their own way and care for their families. We should never underestimate the value that that contribution makes in our society. It provides the opportunity for people to support themselves and their families in dignity. 
I end by endorsing the comments Steve Maharey made in relation to the officials from the Ministry of Social Development the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury. They are well worthy of commendation during the final stages of this legislation because their work has been huge and they have applied their considerable intelligence consistently over many months to produce this legislation. Steve Maharey and Michael Cullen also deserve particular mention. To have in our caucus two men who provide such intellectual rigour vision determination and commitment to this legislation is something I am very proud of. I was going to say “young men” but I think that would be a slight exaggeration. But I am very proud to be part of the team they lead.