Wong Pansy: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Wong Pansy: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13493] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The  
Dominion Post  
this morning features a couple—Phil and Carol Andrews—who are likely Labour and Green supporters. They were approached and asked how they felt about the Government’s announced election bribe. Mr Andrews said: “I would have been happier if they had done it with tax breaks rather than benefits. No one likes being a beneficiary.” That is why we are standing here today. That is the distinction between National and Labour which has low aspirations for our New Zealand people. Hard-working New Zealanders want a tax break. They aspire to stand on their own two feet. But what Labour is telling New Zealanders in this Budget that was very very well labelled as “half-pie” by my learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp is: “Don’t worry. Labour will take it from you and lock you into a life of being a beneficiary.” rather than assisting them to stand up and work their way by growing the economy. 
Why should even those 300000 families be grateful? How did the Government ever get this surplus? How did the Government get this money? They taxed people. It was never “money man” Dr Michael Cullen’s money; it is hard-working New Zealanders’ money. Labour took it away and now thinks that people should thank them for it. I think it is an outrage that Labour is wasting Parliament’s time by keeping us here debating a bill that has no urgency. The only justification today for urgency is for Labour to support the New Zealand First amendment. 
United Future the party that is for family should stand up this morning and say yes it will go all the way for hard-working families and support the New Zealand First amendment to justify the reason why we are meeting here today in urgency. 
I have not heard a passionate speech made by the Minister about why Labour would not support the amendment put up by New Zealand First. If the Hon Steve Maharey as I understood has been battling with his Cabinet colleagues for a universal benefit structure why can he not this morning stand up and give us a good reason particularly to the 300000 families who are supposed to benefit from this package why it cannot be put in place now? I also want to challenge the Minister to stand up and answer some specific questions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why does he think a $5.5 billion surplus is necessary? 
PANSY WONG 
: That is a good question. No. 1: why does the Minister for Social Development and Employment think a $5.5 billion surplus is necessary? I also want the Minister to explain what guarantee he will give to the public that the new benefit that he introduced—the temporary additional support—will not fall into the same category as the emergency unemployment benefit. There are people in New Zealand who have been on the emergency unemployment benefit for 19 years. So I would like the Minister to stand up and tell us whether there is a definition of “temporary additional support”. How temporary is it? Would it run to 10 years 20 years 30 years or life?