Macindoe Tim: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13080] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow my friend Dr Prasad to debate the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. I acknowledge his genuine interest in these issues and his constructive contributions during our Social Services Committee consideration of the bill. I also want to pick up on a point that Dr Prasad was talking about a minute ago. He talked about a moral code and he inferred that members on this side of the House have an underlying sense that people on a benefit are lazy. I want to make it very clear that that is not the case. 
But when we talk about a moral code it is very important to remember that the Government has an overriding moral obligation to ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money that it spends is spent responsibly appropriately and fairly because it is not its money; it is money that comes out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders many of whom are on very low incomes and work long hours to earn that money. The Government has a strong moral obligation to ensure that it does not take one more cent from their pockets than is absolutely deserved. So it is for that reason that I am very pleased to lend my support for this very important bill that has come before the House. 
Reforming our welfare system to create incentives for those who can move off welfare and into work was a major campaign plank for the National Party in the 2008 general election. It was certainly a theme that resonated very strongly in my electorate as I knocked on the doors around Hamilton West. It is a policy that regularly continues to generate regularly favourable comment from those who take a close interest in how our society responds to the needs of those who for whatever reason do not have paid employment. 
Like our Prime Minister and our excellent Minister of Social Development and Employment I am firmly committed to preserving a compassionate fair and responsive welfare system in New Zealand. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have suffered or will in future suffer significant setbacks or health problems and so on. I will always argue that a decent society should respond to their needs and circumstances as generously as possible. 
I acknowledge the contribution of my Waikato colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta who is a thoughtful member but I need to correct the point with which she concluded her speech. She inferred that those who genuinely seek paid work and are unable to secure it will be penalised under this bill. In her remarks at the outset of this debate this afternoon the Minister stressed that no such threat or concern exists. Genuine job seekers will continue to access the unemployment benefit which is of course exactly what it is there for. 
Opposition members on the select committee expressed concern that the bill will hurt New Zealand’s most vulnerable families and exacerbate the gap between wealthy and poor families. The logic of such an argument is seriously flawed. Yes it is possible that beneficiaries will be out of pocket if paid employment is available to them and they could reasonably be expected to undertake it but refuse to do so. But that will be their decision. I fail to see why hard-working low-income earners in my electorate should be required to bail them out. That is the inevitable consequence of healthy people of reasonable working age who do not have young children to care for during the daytime refusing to undertake honest paid employment. 
The Opposition members’ logic is even more off-beam when one considers that those who are on benefits and move into the paid workforce will increase their household income as well as enjoy the other benefits that accrue from increased independence and the self-esteem that regular employment generates. It is absolutely fundamental to this bill and to this Government’s intention that we want people to help themselves. We will give them as much support as is possible and necessary to make that happen. 
Let us look at the potential benefits of this bill. Over the course of a 4-year period it is estimated that this bill could result in a saving of $100 million. We have 9000 sickness beneficiaries at this moment who have been assessed as being capable of undertaking some part-time work. They would not be forced down into the mines for 50 hours a week; they would be undertaking some part-time work. The health benefits of undertaking that work are considerable and well proven. I say that 50000 more people will be subject to the part-time work obligations under this bill. 
Let us look at the figures. There are currently 345000 beneficiaries in New Zealand of whom 43000 are on the domestic purposes benefit with families with children over the age of 6. There are 12000 unemployment beneficiaries who have been on that benefit for more than 1 year. We are simply saying that they must continue to prove their eligibility for it and be available to undertake work when it becomes available. There are 29580 sickness beneficiaries who have been on that benefit for more than 1 year and 85000 receive the invalids benefit. Those are significant numbers in a country of 4.3 million people with an ageing population where there are huge demands upon the dwindling taxpayer dollar. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: What’s the target Tim? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Many hard-working people in my electorate I say to Dr Prasad put in very long hours to care for themselves and their families. I am constantly impressed and humbled by their efforts and I am very supportive of them. Without their efforts we would not have the comprehensive welfare system that this country enjoys. 
I close by repeating the point that I started with. It is their taxes that they pay on their hard-earned wages that fund the system. It is our responsibility to ensure that every dollar we take from them in taxes is spent fairly and wisely. That is what the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill is all about. My constituents tell me it is exactly the right approach to take for a responsible Government that is charged with spending taxpayers’ money. I commend the bill to the House.