Key John: General Debate 
Key John: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2287] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We all learn something new every day. I came down to the House today and learnt something very very special indeed. I learnt that a New Zealand family earning $385000 a year is still considered needy by the Labour Government. Labour considers a family earning $385000 to be in need of a tax cut. 
I am proud to be part of a National Party that campaigned and campaigned hard for the right of all New Zealanders from all walks of life to pay less tax and to keep more of what they earn. I am proud to be part of that party and I am proud to be in one of the parties that form the majority in this Parliament—one of the parties that voted for tax cuts. We are not in the minority like Labour which promised tax cuts to a chosen few who were selected in a last-minute electoral bribe before Labour went down the electoral gurgler. We did not promise one or two selected groups of people tax cuts as Labour did in a gasp of desperation before the Government was taken out. We did not select a group of people as Labour did because Labour had made such a hash of the Budget and had to make up for it. I am proud to be part of the National Party which campaigned for all New Zealanders to have a tax cut. 
I feel very sorry for those many New Zealanders who on 1 April will look across and miss out even though they earn so much less than some of the people earning as much as $385000 a year who will receive something. That package Working for Families should rightfully be named “Welfare for Families”. It is a policy based on a very simple principle—those who in many cases can afford to give the least are being asked to give money to those who very often need it the least. No one in this Parliament can argue that someone earning $385000 a year deserves to take the taxes of a young person earning $25000 a year. That is simply not right and it robs New Zealanders of a rightful and logical system. It also robs New Zealanders of their dignity. 
Overwhelmingly New Zealanders have responded in surveys to the fact that they want to keep more of what they earn. They do not want to become beneficiaries of the State and they do not want to risk being in debt to the State. They do not want to have to estimate their income and potentially become a debtor of the Inland Revenue Department. New Zealanders have asked for a simple thing: just to have left in their pockets more of what they work so hard for every day. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with people having the ambition and the goal of wanting to make the most of their lives? What is wrong with people believing that the skills they have the overtime they work the training they go through or their acceptance of more responsibilities in their jobs will lead to them having more in their pockets rather than being the pawns of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark who may or may not feel desperate enough to give them something on election day and that is it? 
Michael Joseph Savage would be turning in his grave if he believed that his treasured welfare State— 
Jill Pettis 
: He believed in families. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right the Labour members do not like it. But he would be turning in his grave if he saw welfare extended to a family living in an $800000 house in the wealthiest suburb in New Zealand where mum and dad are taking the milk out of the $4000 fridge while the teenaged daughter is playing the latest CD on her iPod and where mum and dad think it is value for money to text her to tell her that grub is up on the table. That is Labour’s idea of the extension of the welfare State. My deputy leader Gerry Brownlee pointed out to me that when Michael Joseph Savage rolled out welfare in this country he never intended for one moment that people living in $800000 houses would be trapped as part of the welfare State—never ever. 
Working for Families is a real “Maharey special”. It started as a mess it was completed as a mess and it will remain a mess the whole way through. It is easy to forget that just 18 months ago we were arguing the case rightfully that New Zealanders may have now forgotten about: that a family earning $38000 will get to take home only $2000 less than a family earning $60000 a year. That is wrong.