Coddington Deborah: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Coddington Deborah: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13487] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The Hon Steve Maharey said it all when he kept going on and on about press releases because that is what this bill is all about. It is all about public relations. He is obsessed with public relations. If what he says is so great why wait until 1 October or 1 April to bring it in? Why not do it now? That is why as Richard Prebble said we will be supporting Peter Brown’s amendment. 
It is outrageous that this bill is not going to a select committee as several members have already pointed out. We all know why the bill will not go to a select committee. It is because the Government is scared of the submissions that would come in. This is the ultimate in redistribution of wealth. Labour has finally once and for all abandoned the worker. It has abandoned all pretence of supporting the worker. One of Labour’s supporters Chris Trotter even said that himself yesterday on television. He is no supporter of the ACT party but he damned this Budget because there is nothing in it for working people. It will take working people into welfare. 
This Government and several other parties have said how this bill will support families. This bill will do nothing for families. Welfare in this country has destroyed families. It is absolutely destroying families. Anybody who is concerned about families in this country would get tough on welfare. The only person who had the fortitude to be tough on welfare was Ruth Richardson in her Budget. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Are you proud of that? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The member should do the research. I am not proud of this country’s appalling rate of teenage pregnancies sexually transmitted diseases and abortions. What happened when Ruth Richardson cut the benefit? Those rates all went down. Read the research. If we give people incentives to have babies they will have them. As P J O’Rourke said: “If I can’t be part of the fun in making these babies why should I pay for them?”. 
This bill will punish those who work hard. Dr Cullen is destroying this country. Why should we take from those who have just because they have it? What sort of message does that send to everyone out there? Giving 300000 households more money to spend will make Dr Cullen and the Hon Steve Maharey feel great but it will come at a huge cost to this country. Brian Fallow in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
had it right. He said that New Zealand now and for the last few years has been trying to live a First World lifestyle on Third World incomes. What have we done? We have just given ourselves a huge pay rise. The country is going to go down. There will not be growth. 
The Hon Steve Maharey asked us whether if ACT were in power on 1 October it would say it would take the money back from people. The ACT party will not ever have to say that because it would not take the money off them in the first place. Whose money is it? Why should people not have the right to keep their own money and spend it how they see fit instead of having a nanny State bossyboots Government tax workers into oblivion? The New Zealand First Party said it would get people into work. Where? Where will the jobs be? What businesses will make jobs available when they have to cope with all this other legislation that is strangling them and driving them across the Tasman in droves? 
The new employment relations legislation and the Holidays Act that came in are the obstacles to job growth. They are the things that in conjunction with a bill like this keep people in welfare. Keeping people dependent on the State is one of the worst things we can ever do to them. It is the worst thing anyone can ever do to anyone and this Government is doing it. The only incentive for families to do any better is to go from work to welfare. 
Dr Cullen talked about a surplus. A surplus used to mean a genuine mistake by the Government in taking more tax than it spent—what is not required for the purpose in hand. A surplus now means a calculated scheme of money collection for redistribution in election year. Those are not my words. Those are words from a document that came out this morning from the Maxim Institute. These are real issues. The institute bases its opinions on sound values supported by United Future and supported by New Zealand First too.