The fundamental problem here is that whenever there is an effort to redistribute wealth, there is a looking away from the idea that it should be expanded, and that's what a bill like this—it's where a bill like this fails. If we are to raise the incomes of New Zealanders, it has to be based on production. It's interesting going back and looking at great socialists of the past, and perhaps the greatest of all—Michael Joseph Savage—who said that whatever is able to be afforded by way of the welfare State has to be paid for by production. That's the bit that's missing here. Just a bill to say we're going to lift the threshold of earnings by $520-something a year so that they can qualify for the family support and maintain it with a gap between those who are not in work. Well, the first thing is there's a real problem with that. Perhaps there are too many people not having the opportunity to work because they are shut out of the economy for one reason or another. No one begrudges anyone the support of the welfare State when they need it. But some of the comments that have come from over the other side of the House today have suggested that there's some big nirvana out there where everybody can just quietly go about their life with any amount of increase coming on a regular basis and not being in a productive position. I don't think people who are genuinely in need of this support—and we saw some of them on TV tonight—will in any way not want to be part of that productive economy.