Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13475] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I would like deal with that last point first before I go on to a few other matters. Let us take the case of the Waihi family—which I suspect might have a bit of a connection with another party in this House—on $55000 a year. That family will gain $150 a week. To deliver that through the tax system what flat tax rate would we need? The rate would be 11.3 percent flat tax. What would that cost? Mr Williamson will buy that. The cost of that in revenue terms is equal to the entire expenditure on education and health put together. That is how much money we would lose from the 11.3 percent flat tax rate. We would have to demolish the health system and the education system and then say: “Haven’t we been very clever? We’ve got a system that isn’t targeted out of that.” 
The member asked what happens in terms of gains to employment. We have widened the gap in this package between benefits and work from a Lockwood Smith width to a Gerry Brownlee width. That is what we have done. It has gone up a long long way. 
What is the National Party’s objection to the package in this legislation? Listen to the confusion as always! What members say is that it is an election bribe it is not big enough and it should be sooner. They say it is a lolly-scramble and it should be a lolly stampede. That is what the National Party says. Mr Brownlee holds up a newspaper—one of the few things he can hide behind—which states: “One for the kids”. He says that is a bad condemnation of the Budget. That confused ramble down either road will not reflect anything in terms of where ordinary middle New Zealanders are. “One for the kids” is a bad headline? My God! To me that is a dream headline arising from a Budget; one I could scarcely have written myself. 
So what are those members trying to say? They are trying to say: “We’re actually jealous that they’ve managed to do this. We wish we could have done it.” They will not say what they are trying to do. If this package comes into force a little bit after the election then to be an election bribe there has to be an assumption that the National Party would repeal it. Ah yes those members have cottoned on. They have suddenly realised the trap they have created for themselves with bad illogical thinking. It is only a bribe on behalf of the Labour Party if it will not be there post-election if there is a change of Government. 
So perhaps Mr Brownlee would like to take a call during another part. Perhaps with Dr Lockwood Smith grinning behind him he might like to tell us whether a National Government would repeal the Future Directions package. Would it repeal it? Will one of the 15 members of the National Party who have bothered to stay to work today tell us whether they would repeal this package? I think we could sit here for a couple of hours and ask that question as we go through the Committee stage and wait for an answer. Let me try it again. Would the National Party repeal the package? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Someone stop the clock! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is right because that is all that will save that member—stopping the clock at this particular point in time. That is all that will save Mr Brownlee. 
The answer is that of course they would. Of course they would take these gains away because this is not their favoured group in society. They do not want a headline that states: “One for the kids”. They want a headline that states: “One taken away from the kids”. Mr Brownlee wants to be the lolly stealer from the children of New Zealand. That is what he wants to do. He wants to mount a raid from Ilam Road down into where I used to live in Burwood—a raid into middle-income New Zealand—and take the lollies back off the kids that the Labour Party is supposed to be offering them. Come the next election I think that will be a pretty good kind of contest to run between Labour and National. We cannot wait for that to be the focus of the next election campaign. 
Who is for families? The Labour Party the Progressive party and the United Future party are and the Green Party is—with reservations. The New Zealand First party is. Barbara Stewart gave an eloquent speech on the problems of child poverty. But the National Party is not and the ACT party does not count. That is all there is of them there.