Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9904] 
Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will be moving that the bill is referred to the Social Services Committee and that the committee reports back to the House finally on or before 30 July 2010. 
In the context of this legislation my focus is on the future: the future of New Zealand; the future of the welfare system; the future of individuals families and children; and the future of our society. Do we want a society that values work and the ability to provide for ourselves and our families? Do we want a society that says we will look after those who are most vulnerable and most in need? Do we want a society that teaches its children by example that the path to a better more prosperous and fulfilling life is through work not welfare? I believe that the answer is yes and I believe that that vision for the future is shared by most New Zealanders. Surely we all aspire to a better future for our children. 
When this Government took office 18 months ago it inherited a welfare State that showed no sign of diminishing despite having enjoyed a decade of favourable economic conditions and strong employment. So through the best of times Labour failed to do anything about long-term welfare dependency; it simply squandered that opportunity because it dared not challenge the status quo. That status quo which Labour has been so wedded to embodies an attitude towards welfare that is quite frankly dangerous. An entitlement mentality has become entrenched to the point where for some welfare is viewed no longer as a last resort reserved for the most vulnerable but as a right of all citizens. National recognised that attitude as an unhealthy unsustainable burden on those who work hard to support the system. It is those hard-working New Zealanders who gave National the mandate to bring this legislation before the House today. National’s manifesto commitment to fairness and an unrelenting focus on work on what people can do and not on what they cannot do is what New Zealanders voted for at the last election. It is that promise that we deliver today. 
It is ironic to think that after enjoying such sunny economic times Labour left office and slunk off into the sunset while behind it the storm clouds of a major economic recession were already breaking. New Zealanders were left to struggle through an economic storm that washed away the remnants of a strong labour market leaving many people high and dry with fewer jobs to cling to. Those hard-working New Zealanders struggling to pay the bills who battled on supporting themselves and their families watched their tax dollars flowing out each week to support a growing number of people on welfare and asked themselves whether that was fair. They asked whether the people they were supporting were really those in the greatest need. 
Fairness is a vital part of this legislation. It is a sense of fairness that calls us to rebalance the incentives and the obligations to ensure that only those who need help will get it. We have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure we are spending their welfare dollars carefully because every dollar we spend on welfare has been earned by a hard-working New Zealander. We have a responsibility to get this right because this system has been left to its own devices for too long. We have a responsibility to those who are on welfare and have the ability to do more to actually follow through and give them the support they need so that they are not consigned to a lifetime of limited choices and limited potential. 
Why are we making these changes? We want to ensure fairness in the system with the right balance of obligations and incentives to address an unreasonable sense of entitlement and to introduce a set of expectations. Yes we do expect those on the unemployment benefit to make every effort to find work. Yes we do expect those on a domestic purposes benefit whose youngest child has turned 6 to be working towards work or taking part-time work. Yes we do expect those on a sickness benefit to be getting well so that they can return to work. These are fair and reasonable expectations. We have changed the processes around sanctions so that when obligations are not met a first time a 50 percent cut in the benefit kicks in. That means those who do not turn up for a scheduled job interview for example could lose half their benefit unless they have a very good reason for failing to meet their obligations. If again and again they fail to turn up their benefit will be cut completely except for those with dependent children who will lose a maximum of half of their benefit with no changes to add-ons like the accommodation supplement so that they are not penalised unfairly. But let us be clear: all we are asking is for people to meet their obligation to make an effort to get off welfare and into work. If the work is not there their benefit will remain. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The children will suffer. 
Sue Moroney 
: You’ve failed to provide jobs. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I say it one more time for the snappy turtles: if the work is not there their benefit will remain. The safety net is not being hauled in completely; it is just being trimmed to catch only those who need it. 
We are providing greater incentives for those who are on benefits to transition into work by raising the abatement levels so that those who do work for a few hours a week keep more pay in their pockets. I am thrilled that we went a step further than our manifesto and increased the upper abatement level from $180 to $200. That is a fair incentive. 
But there is a higher purpose to this. It comes back to the question of what kind of society we want to live in. Are we happy to leave thousands of children of beneficiaries to languish in households living a hand-to-mouth existence and leading limited lives? Are we happy to do nothing about the 82000 who have claimed a benefit for 5 years or more? Frankly although Labour was content to ignore this problem this Government is not. National has greater aspirations for New Zealanders. They involve a brighter future for many people a future where they are in work and not on welfare. We know that it is vital that we implement supports for those who are reliant on welfare to provide pathways into work. 
Sue Moroney 
: There are no jobs. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The Minister should be ashamed. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Those members should listen up. That is why we are investing $223 million a year in employment-related training and support—$223 million a year. We are investing in industry partnership wage subsidies straight-to-work programmes and Training Opportunities Programmes providing help with writing CVs boosting literacy and numeracy skills and placing those people in work. We know that a country of 4.3 million people cannot continue to support 345000 beneficiaries. It is not healthy for our economy it is not healthy for individuals and it is not healthy for society. 
This is a conservative start one that sees our tightening up the system to provide only for those who genuinely need it while sending a clear message that those who can should. We must get this right. This is a crucial opportunity to effect a major shift in thinking a shift in attitude and a shift in aspiration that lifts people’s sights up beyond a simple existence on welfare to a meaningful rewarding life as a working member of society participating and giving back. We are effecting a change in the way that society views the welfare system. This policy makes it clear that welfare is a stopgap not a solution. The introduction of clear obligations and expectations will change the way that people use the system by discouraging long-term dependency. 
National is taking this opportunity to have the first real honest discussion this country has had about welfare in a long time. We are quite simply calling a spade a spade. Labour likes to talk about “clients” “supports” “help” and “entitlements”. It is called welfare and beneficiaries are paid benefits—let us at least be straight up and honest. But Labour fails to see the bigger picture which is a New Zealand that does not have 12 percent of its working-age population on welfare and a New Zealand that values work and self-responsibility. And here is the rub of it all: if we shut our eyes to the bigger picture as Labour did we will be blind to what is staring us in the face. The fact is that if we do not do something right now our children will be mortgaged for years to come by an irresponsible reliance on a welfare system that supports an ever-growing population of beneficiaries. Working New Zealanders cannot support an ageing population as well as an increasing number of people on welfare. So I say that society has arrived at a crucial junction: we can continue on as we have been without ambition or we can move ahead. This legislation provides the first few steps on that path. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The policy this bill will implement is to give beneficiaries a kick in the backside. The policy this bill will implement is to tell beneficiaries the dream is over. The dream is over; the dream the Minister for Social Development and Employment herself took when she was in the position to take it; the dream she took so that she could get ahead and get a job and bring up her family; and the dream she would like to deny to others. Well I say to her that I have never heard a beneficiary tell me that living on the benefit is a dream. 
We have just heard nothing but pure spin from that Minister—pure spin. She said that in the time of the previous Labour Government we did nothing about beneficiaries unemployment or the whole benefit system. I shall tell that Minister what we did. We took the number of unemployed people on the benefit down from over 400000 New Zealanders to around 280000 in the time we were in Government. That was not doing nothing; that was ensuring we put in the right support to help people to get jobs and to get training. We did not pull out the support that they needed which is exactly what the National Government did at the first opportunity. It cut the training incentive allowance took away scholarships and did not put the focus on creating jobs which it ought to have done. We now have 345000 people on benefits in New Zealand. That number has gone up from 280000 under that Minister’s watch and she has the cheek to tell this House that the previous Labour Government did nothing about beneficiaries. 
Well if she thinks this bill will solve the problem then she really is in cloud-cuckoo-land as Paul Henry said last week. I tell the Minister that when one work tests people for a job the first principle is that there have to be jobs for people to go into. It is interesting that even Treasury said not to do it now that the timing is not right to try to work test sickness beneficiaries into jobs—and I will get on to that shortly. If there are no jobs out there and the Minister is bringing in her “kick in the backside” and is “ending the dream” as she says where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that go from 9 to 3 with school holidays off? Where are the jobs for people who are unwell who have to take medication and have to have medical treatment? Where are the employers who are coming forward as the Minister blames and shames beneficiaries because they are in that predicament? That is exactly what the Minister is doing. She stands up and talks tough although she herself was quite happy have the advantage that a good social security system gives this country. 
I have to say that the stated intent of this bill is not what the bill means. In fact the Minister claims that the bill will give a fairer system of social assistance to New Zealanders. Let me just read what the Attorney-General said about the Minister’s own bill and her policy. The Attorney-General is the most senior Minister in Cabinet in terms of being a lawyer. He is the Attorney-General. He is the top lawyer in the National Government. Let me just read what he says—[ 
Interruption 
] I hope the shrieking Minister listens because she obviously did not read this when it came to Cabinet. This is what her own colleague the Attorney-General said: “The stated objective of the Bill as a whole is to create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. While this is an important and significant objective the different treatment of people on the [DPB single parent] compared to women on the [widows benefit and DPB women alone] does not deserve this objective because it does not”—it does not—“create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment. Nor does it recognise the benefits of work for women on [the widows benefit] and the [DPB women alone]. Expressed another way the limit is not rationally”—listen to this—“connected to the Bill’s stated objective. Nor do the distinctions appear to serve any other valid non-discriminatory objective.” That statement was not from the Opposition; that statement came from the Attorney-General who is a Minister in that Government on that side of the House. 
This is not a bill that is fair to all people who are in receipt of a benefit. This is not a Labour bill. This is not our policy. It is National’s policy. It has chosen to discriminate against certain groups of women and men on the benefit. It has chosen to say that a person who receives the widows benefit equals good but a person who receives the domestic purposes benefit and is a single parent—who is on the benefit because she is divorced because her husband took off with somebody else or because she does not have a partner—is bad and should be work tested. But not if she is a widow and there is a subliminal message in that. It comes from the fact that John Key’s mother was a widow. She was not one of those domestic purposes benefit recipients who got themselves pregnant and then were on the State’s purse. That is the subliminal message because there is no other reason why a Government that is going to discriminate—as this Government wants to do—does not say that it includes all people. 
The other discrimination is that men who are widowers will be work tested under this policy but women who are widows will not. That is not Labour’s policy; it is National’s policy. Why would the Government discriminate in such a way? It does not make sense and the Attorney-General said it did not make sense. 
This bill sets out some objectives. It has a clear focus on work. You know most New Zealanders want to work. Members should never forget the 3000 New Zealanders who queued outside a supermarket only a few weeks ago to get 150 jobs. They queued for hours because they wanted to work. They could not all have a job but they wanted to work. And most New Zealanders do want to work. They want a job. But this policy says they ought to get a job. Well if the Government can help to train and prepare people for the jobs can help them into work that is fine. But to bring in this policy when everyone knows that 168000 people are unemployed now—and that does not count all the jobless—is crazy indeed. 
What did Treasury say about this policy? Treasury is not necessarily known for its sympathy I have to say for those on benefits but this is what it said: “we do not support the introduction of the SB work-test into legislation at this time. We recommend that the issue of work testing for those on health and disability-related benefits be considered by the proposed Welfare Working Group”. That would have been the place for us to look at these changes. “Currently” Treasury goes on to say “the SB is not appropriate for a part-time work-test as it is designed for people who will eventually return to work full-time (the majority do). Applying a part-time work test to the current SB would require someone to seek additional hours of work for minimal financial gain. For example a Sickness Beneficiary on minimum wage would receive approximately $1/hour in additional income for each hour worked beyond the abatement threshold (70% abatement applies…)”. That means that a person who is sick who goes out to work will work for $1 an hour under this policy. 
Labour will not support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We will vote against this bill going to the select committee. The bill has one or two very small matters of assistance to beneficiaries. It lifts the threshold for abatement to $100 from $80 but if the Government really intended to do something about the level of abatement it would lift it to $130 not $100. The bill puts into legislation rather than leaving it to convention the pegging of the benefit to the CPI and it lifts the threshold of abatement for a non-qualifying spouse on superannuation. But apart from that this bill is ill-thought-out. It is not even based on evidence or research as the Minister’s own regulatory statement says. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to support the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill today. I can think of no better Minister in this House than Minister Bennett to put forward this bill. She is a Minister who understands the welfare system who has empathy and compassion and who will deliver for those people on benefits a brighter future which the previous Government under Helen Clark could not deliver. That Government failed people on benefits it failed to give them aspiration and it failed to deliver that brighter future. It is very interesting that Annette King stood up and asked where the jobs were going to come from. She asked “Who gives 9 to 3 jobs?”. I tell the House that my office does. My office is open from 9 until 3 and I employ people who are coming back into the workforce. I employ— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: But that’s just one. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: No it is not. Steve Chadwick says that that is just one job— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: One office. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It is one office that is correct but it is more than one job because I have job-sharing. I want to have people with children who want to come back into the workforce working in my office because they contribute. Members in the Opposition are sitting there shaking their heads but I challenge them to use job-sharing in their offices and to offer jobs going from 9 to 3 so that people can re-enter the workforce. Members on this side of the House do that. We actually walk the walk and talk the talk. We do that and that is what this great Minister is doing today. 
I find it interesting that many many members of this House have been solo mums and they understand how hard it is when people have been at home—and it is not just solo mums; it is mothers and parents who have been out of the workforce—for them to go back into the workforce to build their confidence to retrain and to feel as if they can add value to the workforce when they have been out of it for a while. We are not underestimating that. Many of the mothers on the domestic purposes benefit are well-educated and well-trained but they have been unlucky in getting into that situation which was never planned. They never thought they would be there and now they want help to get out of the situation they are in. They are keen to go back to work. They know what they will get from having a job—the value that it will bring them in their self-esteem. That is what this bill will do. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It won’t happen in that way. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It will happen and it will happen under a National Government. We care about those women and those partners who have been out of work who want to get back into work and add some value. I can tell members that if we want to give some aspiration to the children of this country who are in the homes of beneficiaries we will have to encourage them and help them to get there. That is what this Government is doing. 
As chair of the Social Services Committee I can tell the House that this bill will be coming into our select committee tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the submissions and what they have to say and to finding out how they will add value to this bill. I look forward to this bill coming to the Social Services Committee tomorrow. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Minister in introducing her Government’s Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill talked about the future. I suspect that she was referring to a National Government future a future of division—of “divide and rule” and of the rich versus those who are in need—a future aimed at destroying our clean green image by digging up our precious conservation areas and a future aimed at undermining our democratic processes by running roughshod over the Auckland super-city. That is not the kind of future that the Labour Opposition supports and that is not the kind of future that New Zealand society supports. 
In 1999 Labour inherited about 161000 people on the unemployment roll. In 2008 when Labour left office there were only 20000 people on that roll. That is the number we gave over to National when it took office. At the end of 2008 the number of unemployed people had gone up to about 37000. It was acceptable at that time because people generally recognised that there was a recession. So we went with that because there was a recession. However there was no mini-Budget at the end of 2008 and there was no jobs budget in 2009; but there was much ado about a Job Summit and many of us today are still waiting to see what the jobs were that were created from that Job Summit. To this day I do not know whether any jobs were ever created in our community. Things are worse now and not better. There was a freeze on public sector pay. The Government kept talking about putting a cap on the workforce instead of making a cut in the workforce. More and more people have been added to the number of unemployed until at the end of last year about 168000 were on the unemployment roll. Those numbers continue to rise. 
There was also a bit of a splash about a $50 million cycleway. It was predicted supposedly to produce 4000 jobs. Again we ask where those jobs are. And I have to say that many in my community are asking who can afford a $100 or $200 bicycle for the cycleway. 
If we are talking about the future as this Government seems to believe it is doing by targeting the unemployed solo parents and sickness beneficiaries then let us ask the Government what it will do for the children and young people who will be affected if these benefits to needy families are cut. What will the Government do for families who will struggle with meeting the day-to-day rigours of life and the cost of living and whose children will end up going without? The future is about our youth about strengthening our economy and about looking after and strengthening the workforce which is predominantly Maori Pacific and Asian in areas such as Manukau and Mangere. What is this Government doing to strengthen our future workforce so that we can expect this future generation to pay for future superannuation? What will this Government do about strengthening the future workforce so that young people today will be able to pay for the future health-care that this country will need? What will this Government do to prepare the younger generation the future workforce in order for them to be able to pay for the education that the young generation will need in the future? These reforms will not achieve that. They will not achieve that at all. 
One has to wonder why last week the Government made this particular announcement. My colleague the Hon Annette King said that this was dog-whistle politics and she is absolutely correct. She is absolutely correct. Why was this announcement made when the Government was constantly under attack by New Zealanders because it was looking to mine all our conservation areas? It was a deflection; it was about deflecting the issue. Again this is sending out dog-whistle messages to the rednecks out there to those who do not understand the hardship that many families are going through and the hardships that some families have no control over. 
I want to read an example from someone who came into my office but I will not say who this person is. This person was made redundant in 2009 from Fletcher Construction in Penrose. He was paid a redundancy and all of that went on the bills. He has been going back and forth to Work and Income for any assistance that he and his family can get but because his wife works and because she earns a mere $300 net per week Work and Income has advised him that he is not eligible for any kind of support. He is on the books of New Zealand Labour Hire but only as a casual because assignments are very short and few and far between. My office referred this family to the Mangere budgeting service and when it went through the books to determine his income and outgoings there was a total household deficit of $287.41. 
That is an example of the families in my electorate and no doubt throughout Manukau and other parts of New Zealand who are struggling. This Government seems to label everybody in this way and say that they are trying to— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Labelling them as bludgers. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes it is labelling them as bludgers. Again it is a stereotype that is not true. Many of those people in Pacific communities and in Maori communities and many other people who are unemployed want to work. The dole is not any place for our families. The dole is not any place for people who want to get ahead. People want to get ahead and the only way that they will get ahead is through having a job. That is why we have asked the Government: “Where are those jobs?”. 
We saw images on TV not too long ago of 3000 people in line applying for 150 measly low-paid jobs at a local supermarket. Three thousand people were out there early in the morning with their CVs and applications because they wanted to work. Where are those jobs? What will the Government do with the solo mums who will now be put under pressure? Will they stand in line behind those 3000 job applicants or behind the 168000 people without jobs? Is that the future for the community out there? I hope not. But that is the kind of future that this Government is talking about. 
I have had numerous emails from New Zealanders across the country who on hearing the announcement by this Government are outraged. I want to read out some of them. This is from a woman who is a resident of Wellington. This is what she said: “These are my thoughts around this matter.” referring to the Government’s welfare reform. “I have noted that whenever National gets into Government there is a pattern of stigmatising the beneficiaries. It is often the women who are demonised for having the children despite the fact that Aotearoa needs a growing population to support the growing aged cohort who I might add need medical treatments to keep them alive. It seems ironic that it’s the aged cohort who support National’s policies and yet it’s now the young generations that are funding it. How the heck do they think they’re going to maintain the gold card and the demands on the health sector? The aged generation needs the young generation employed or otherwise. These ridiculous statements cause divisions within our society in terms of class divisions. It continues to be the children of the families on benefits who are penalised by having to go without some of the fundamentals in life. The National Party have cleverly put a woman in charge of the MSD portfolio so that the feminists and other women can’t protest. Presently people who are applying for jobs are finding they are overskilled for the job. What makes the Government think that unskilled parents are going to have a chance at obtaining employment that is family friendly? National policies are harsh and ridiculous. Where are the thousands of jobs that the National Party promised?”. 
What we want from this Government is job creation and skills development. That cannot happen if the Government continues to cut areas where it should be investing. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 With respect to my friend from Labour I do not think this is dog whistling. I think this is a siren to National supporters. This is all about an ideological position. It has nothing to do with evidence. It is not dog whistling at all. It is about making it loud and clear to National supporters perhaps even to their funders that the Government will attack the most vulnerable families and do damage to the children of the poorest families in order to win itself a few extra votes. That is where this National Government is coming from. 
I do not think that it is an extreme position at all to say that this is dreadful legislation. It is abusive legislation which is misconceived out of the traditional National Party—and I do not say this lightly but I think it is true—pathological hatred of beneficiaries in this country. National has a pathological hatred of the poorest and most vulnerable families in this country. I am appalled that a Minister who herself was once a beneficiary as I was is responsible for the introduction of this legislation. It is a direct attack on her own community that seems deliberately designed to build on the failures of past National-led Governments in the area of so-called welfare reform. 
I lived through the first tranche of this in the early and mid-1990s. I was a beneficiary at that time and I worked with beneficiary families at that time. The “mother of all Budgets” cut welfare spending and cut the domestic purposes benefit by some 40 percent leaving those families hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families at the very bottom of the breadline and barely able to feed themselves at all and pay their rent and power bills. They were purposely put in that position by the National Government and it is intending to do that again. We can see how that is happening in this legislation. 
But I want to talk about the evidence—about whether there is any—for the intention of this legislation. Let us start with the regulatory impact statement which states: “There is no research currently available which accurately quantifies the size of the behavioural response from these changes in policy.” There is no evidence at all of any behavioural change. It goes on to say: “This prevents estimates with the degree of accuracy required from being made of the number of people who will move from benefit to work over a year as a result of the proposed changes.” There is no evidence to show that the policy will make any changes in people’s behaviour and therefore there is no estimate about how many people will be moved from benefits to work. This statement confirms what the Minister said in answer to a question I asked him last week that the Government does not know who the target is. The Government does not know who it is talking about when it says it wants to move people from benefits to work. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s just rhetoric. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yes to National they are some faceless families. They are certainly not faceless to me because I was once a part of one of those families and I still deal with those families. Clearly the National Government does not deal with them and this Minister certainly does not. 
In other words the Government does not have the faintest idea whether or to what extent this bill will achieve its stated objectives. It is a pure form of ideological beneficiary bashing without there being a shred of evidence that anything in this bill will actually work. The regulatory impact statement reveals some interesting comments from Treasury and the Ministry of Health about aspects of the bill. That is a euphemistic way of putting it because the actual documents show that Treasury opposed the work testing of sickness beneficiaries. Treasury opposed the work testing of sickness beneficiaries one of the cornerstones of this legislation because as we heard earlier it will have sickness beneficiaries working for less than $1 an hour once their earnings exceed 80 bucks. That is less than $1 an hour for those who are ill. It is less than $1 an hour for those suffering from an illness that they need support to recover from. They need support so that they can be well and can go and earn better money in better jobs—jobs that can support them and their families. But no this Government will force them out so that they will end up earning less than $1 an hour. These are New Zealanders in the 21st century with a Government whose mind is still in the time of Dickens. Government members still have their minds back in Dickens’ day. 
I can understand why the Ministry of Health is concerned. There is already a creaking public health service that will struggle to cope with an additional 49000 extra doctors’ visits a year from sickness beneficiaries—49000 extra doctors’ visits a year that the public will pay for. The purpose of those visits will not be to treat these people to provide medicines and support or to provide assistance to help them to get well but to simply fulfil the bureaucratic requirements of this Government. This Government is putting in place the requirement for sickness beneficiaries to make those visits and for the public to spend all that money so that this Government can say that it will work test and continue to punish beneficiaries particularly sickness beneficiaries. So much for putting money into front-line services! Those 49000 extra bureaucratic doctors’ visits a year will do nothing for sickness beneficiaries and this National Government is costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
Then there is the report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from the Attorney-General. It stated: “I conclude that by introducing a part-time work test for DPB-SB but not the WB and DPB-WA” the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that that inconsistency “cannot be justified”. The bill is discriminatory against a woman because of her circumstances and that discrimination cannot be justified. In answers in public to questions last week the Minister for Social Development and Employment seemed to be suggesting that it is somehow fair and reasonable for the Government to make that discrimination but we know that that is not true. This is not an argument to increase the work testing regime to those women who are receiving the women alone payment or who are on a widows benefit. This is an argument for asking why women who find themselves in a particular kind of situation—mostly it is not due to anything that they have done; it is not their fault—should be subjected to discriminatory work tests that will impact severely on them and on their children. It cannot be justified. 
In the case of sickness beneficiaries we oppose work testing because of the ridiculous situation where people who are ill end up earning less than $1 an hour. Also it is compulsory work so if they do not take the job that will earn them less than $1 an hour then their benefit will be cut. But these people will have no option. They will be forced into this work forced into earning less than $1 an hour. In that regard this shows that John Key’s Government has reneged on a promise that it made in its election manifesto. It has broken another promise—one to add to the many. 
This Government’s policy was that the abatement threshold for all benefits would increase from $80 to $100 a week but that is not what it is delivering. It is delivering that for only some and those who will miss out are some of our most vulnerable people: those on sickness benefits. We know from the evidence that when Australia introduced a similar policy of work testing in 2006 subsequent reports looking at the effectiveness of that work-testing policy showed that it failed. It made no difference whatsoever to the number of people who were moving on and off the disabilities benefit which is the equivalent benefit in Australia. It made no difference at all to those people’s needs because people will move on to the benefit when jobs are scarce and when they need that support and they will move right off again as they did in the late 1990s and the early 2000s when jobs become available. We know that in a time of recession as we are in right now the impacts fall on those on the lowest income first. Those jobs are not there. 
Finally I will address the provisions that relate to the unemployment benefit. This benefit is paid to people who are actively seeking work and quite rightly so. That is the whole point of the benefit and those people are seeking work. This bill requires them to be interviewed 12 months after first receiving the benefit and to reapply after that date. But if this Government was serious about assisting these people into work then I ask why it would not do that earlier. Why would it not do at 3 months when people have had a chance to try to figure out what the job market is like and have had some time for support? I ask why the Government does not do it at 3 months but does it at 12 months. Actually it has nothing to do with trying to support people into work. It is just another bureaucratic measure that will cost more money punish people and make it look as if this Government is doing something about beneficiary issues when in fact all it is doing is abusing these people. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 When welfare was created the goal was to provide temporary support for people who were able-bodied but were without an income. It focused on returning them to the workforce promptly and as soon as possible. Today the concept of the right to live off a benefit often outweighs the obligation to get a job. This Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill in my view restores some of that balance. 
As a result of what has been happening in this country and despite favourable economic circumstances the number of working-age beneficiaries dependent on the State today is around 300000. One child in three now lives in a benefit-dependent household and research identifies that such parents and children fare badly in education health and crime statistics. By seriously weakening work incentives by softening fraud recovery and by increasing benefit payments the requirement to move from welfare to work has been dangerously undermined over recent years in my view at least. This bill changes some of these incentives. It is for this National Government a major piece of legislation putting in place National’s manifesto commitment to reform the welfare system. The main changes—which I support—are those that require people who are receiving some benefits to seek and accept offers of work and that require that financial support should reflect the circumstances and need of the individual. 
Certain principles and I think basic truths flow from the situation that New Zealand now faces. New Zealand cannot I suggest succeed as a nation when a quarter to a third of all adults are being supported by the State. Nor can we get ahead when high taxes and increasing compliance costs are stifling jobs and growth. True compassion demands that welfare provides a hand-up to work independence and a better future. State assistance should aim to be of a temporary nature. Public policy priorities should protect the interests of children by recognising that in general children raised on welfare fail to do as well in all areas of life than those raised by parents in work. 
If New Zealand is to succeed then we need to put personal responsibility self-reliance and work above welfare dependency. We need to reduce the barriers to economic growth and to restore full employment. We need to eliminate long-term dependency of working-age beneficiaries who can work and we need to dramatically reduce the number of working-age New Zealanders on welfare—in particular the unemployment benefit the domestic purposes benefit and the sickness benefit. We as a nation simply cannot afford to waste the human potential of 300000 working-age people on benefits. We simply cannot afford that particular level of waste. 
In summary the welfare system was intended by the original designers many of them from the Labour Party as temporary assistance to alleviate poverty. It was not intended to make people dependent on the State reward irresponsibility or dysfunctional behaviour or contribute to the breakdown of the two-parent family. I support the bill as a move in the right direction. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. In looking at the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill I have to look back at the history of the struggle for tino rangatiratanga a long and hard road whose early beginnings were paved by warriors who fought and died to hold their lands by statesmen who sought a peaceful path but got trampled underfoot by colonial invaders by small communities retreating into themselves in a vain attempt to stave off the devastation of European diseases and by the many new Maori religious and Government systems set up to try to deliver the shattered dreams of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for a society where the white man governed those for whom he was responsible Maori managed their own affairs and both societies worked together for the betterment of all. 
I list historical figures from throughout that time such as Eru Patuone and Tamati Waka Nene who signed both He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and who tried to hold together a shaky peace that settlers had no intention of keeping; Hone Heke who opposed British taxation in an area he considered his own and went to war against the Crown to protect those rights; people from small communities like Whakapara where one of the iwi actually had to live in the cemetery to bury the dead to save his people from the raging deaths caused by the common cold and the dreaded influenza; Anikaaro for creating a religious umbrella to try to protect her people; the rangatira who founded the Kotahitanga movement to give their people an alternative Government based on kaupapa Maori; and Hone Heke Ngapua Tai Tokerau’s greatest ever member of Parliament whose vision and courage and maturity belied his youth and whose memory has been thankfully captured in a wonderful book by historian Paul Moon. 
In looking at this bill I also add to that list more contemporary figures such as Sir James Henare the last true paramount chief of Ngapuhi who reminded us that we know that we have tino rangatiratanga when we have the power of life and death over our people. We might never exercise it he was quick to point out but it most assuredly rested in our hands—a sobering thought indeed. I think of Whina Cooper who realised that genuine power rested in the hands of Maori women and formed the Maori Women’s Welfare League to give voice to that power and who energised the whole of Maoridom by leading the great Maori Land March to Wellington. That protest had a simple slogan: “Not one acre more.”—a slogan that has been ignored by every Government since. I think of Dame Mira Szaszy who said in the year of the land march: “The loss of land has haunted the Maori since the Treaty of Waitangi. Some action is necessary to lay this ghost to rest for ever. Only then it seems will Maori find themselves and become once again a self-determined self-respecting people. The march must go on if for no other reason than the expression of an awakening spirit.” I think of the Hon Matiu Rata who gave birth to the Waitangi Tribunal and established a pathway to redemption that successive Governments have eagerly travelled all the while reminding Maori to be realistic in their expectations which is the Government’s way of saying: “We’ll say sorry but you must be joking if you think we’re gonna give it back!”. And dare I say it I also include old “Dirty Dogs” himself the Hon Tau Henare who in his short time as Minister of Maori Affairs flouted the rules at every opportunity snaffled money for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori where none existed signed off on our wharekura at Te Rangianiwaniwa when all the bureaucrats were saying no and proved that belief in boldness was a genuine prerequisite to the exercise of good ministership. 
So when I come to this benefits reform bill I am reminded of a history that teaches me to speak truthfully of the issues to speak boldly of the future but to be guided by the words of Matiu Rata who said: “If you think on your journey through leadership for our people that your road will be hard you can rest assured that it is 10 times harder for the rest of our people out there.” 
That is why the Maori Party opposes this legislation—because Maori have never sought the debilitation that comes with crippling dependency and nor do we seek poverty but neither are we the guinea pigs to be mucked around with by a bureaucracy that victimises those who are powerless and who are suffering because of the crash of a system of bloated financial greed fed by past Governments and rescued by current ones. 
I know heaps of folks who have gone hungry looking for work rather go on the dole because they know what a demeaning experience it can be. They know the shame that comes from not being able to provide for their kids. They are already feeling worthless and then a Minister comes out with a line like “The dream is over.” I know heaps of people on the benefit and for them it is no dream. There is no dream in having to push your baby downtown in a rainstorm because you cannot afford a bus. There is no dream in living on the edge when money is tight and you are worried sick about the kids needing to go to the doctor the power being cut off the car breaking down or needing money for school trips. Having no job ain’t a dream either. It is a brutal reality. There is no dream in being so addicted to tobacco that people sacrifice food to buy smokes especially when we know that Governments current and past know it is a killer but will let people die so that they can take $1 billion every year in taxes. A dream? Not bloody likely. It has been a nightmare. 
We hear a lot of talk about this bill creating a shift away from dependency and into employment. But the truth is that the economic downturn has actually resulted in a greater need for social security. Honestly forcing 43000 domestic purposes beneficiaries to go and get a job when their child turns 6 sounds a bit bloody ridiculous when we already know there are not even 4300 jobs out there. And that is just the domestic purposes beneficiaries. What about the 26 percent of rangatahi Maori and 27 percent of Pasifika youth registered as unemployed? With that level of unemployment the question is obvious: what is the point in waving the big stick when there simply are not any jobs out there? Why penalise and even criminalise beneficiaries when clearly a more positive and inclusive approach is required? 
That brings me to Whanau Ora because that is what Whanau Ora is all about. It is a way to help Maori lift themselves out of despair to help Maori lift themselves back to square one to help Maori realise that they are the masters of their own destiny by reshuffling the resources to ensure the help gets to where it is most needed rather than going round and round in aimless policy circles in Wellington redesigning idiotic schemes that change according to the politics of the day and generally have no impact whatsoever on those they are intended to help. Whanau Ora was designed by Maori to help Maori. And it is not even about money. Hell given the confidence and support of the Government it would very quickly lead to less money because Whanau Ora is about helping whanau to see that they are the answer to their own future that they are the focus for their children and that Whanau Ora is indeed all that Future Focus can never be. Whanau Ora is not just about amalgamating contracts nor is it just another social welfare programme like the many failed ventures of the past. Whanau Ora is a bold attempt to rewrite the book; to take the $1 billion currently being wasted on social recovery for Maori and make that money work for the whole of society by putting it in the hands of providers who are directly connected to the communities they serve so that they can work with whanau to change their circumstances and take responsibility for their future. Yes we support the calls to move people off the dole for a move away from dependency and towards a world where work is an option for all. But the better option is Whanau Ora not sliding back down that well-travelled road of targeting the victims. 
We are passionately opposed to any move that will penalise families living in poverty. We will oppose any legislation that will hurt children who have no way of defending themselves. And we will work with anyone who wants to address those issues in a positive manner rather than through bills that are already sending signals that those in need are a burden on society rather than a reality in a world still struggling to cope with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Maori Party accepts the position that Minister Turia is in as we accept also the view that Whanau Ora is the only positive option available to address the many social concerns facing Maori at the moment. We are disappointed that at a time when a bold and visionary approach is needed to deal with the desperate social plight of many in our society when we have the chance to take up Whanau Ora as a mark of that boldness and that vision the Government has simply chosen the “blame the victim” option. The Maori Party will be opposing this bill. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Huri noa i to tatou Whare tena tatou katoa. I stand unambiguously and unequivocally alongside the Minister of Social Development and Employment in supporting the introduction of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Emotive language has been used about punishment and penalty but this bill is far removed from that. It is focused instead on how we can get fairness into our society. 
If the Opposition thinks it is fair to condemn benefit-dependent households to a lifetime of benefits then all I can say is I am glad we are in Government. We have far higher aspirations and ambitions for the people of New Zealand. We want fairness for benefit-dependent households; we want fairness for the children in those households. The Opposition thinks the best life that the children of New Zealand can have is one of lifelong dependency on society. I will never support that. The children of New Zealand require hope; they require the understanding that it is not normal not to see people go to work and that it is not normal to grow up in a household of multi-generational dependence on the State. It saps the spirit of those children it saps the spirit of those adults it saps the spirit of the grandparents and it saps the community that they are a part of. This Government is not prepared to sit back and let that happen. 
And this Government is equally committed to fairness to the workers; to the workers who every day go out and do the “measly” kind of job that that member over there dismisses; to the workers who are prepared to pay their taxes who want to be fair to people who are benefit-dependent who want to be able to help but who also want to ensure that there is fairness in our society. And we want fairness in the future. We have a burgeoning population. We need to have growth in our economy. We need to have people with an aptitude and an attitude oriented towards work. This bill is based on that. 
The Opposition members are going on and on about work while dismissing as measly the jobs that are available. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What jobs? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: If Opposition members are prepared to listen I will tell them. As at Friday just past Youth Opportunities through Job Ops and Community Max had delivered 7391 jobs. But of course Opposition members want to be judgmental. They want to talk only about work as they define work. But 7391 people are delighted to have the opportunity to work. Those members say there is no work. Currently 6000 vacancies are advertised with Work and Income but I guess that is not the kind of work the Opposition is talking about. Opposition members are concerned about theoretical work in an ideal world whereas this Government lives in the real world and delivers up real jobs. That is what this Government is about. 
The Social Services Committee will be delighted to have this bill referred to it. We want to hear from people who are committed to a long strong and sustainable future where they are not subject or condemned to being dependent. 
Moana Mackey 
: If only rhetoric could create jobs! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: This is not rhetoric; this is knowledge. I happen to come from a community that is hugely benefit-dependent. I happen to have worked in that community as have many of my whanau and all of us are committed to finding work for those people. I speak with some authority because we have started businesses that have given work to those people whom Opposition members wax lyrical about but do they do anything about them? Oh forget it! Those members would rather whinge and moan. I am interested in rangatiratanga; I am interested in the practical personal kind of rangatiratanga which allows individuals to have authority over their own lives to be able to make decisions for themselves and to not have to rely on a Government of any kind because they have the quality of life they want and they are not subject to the idea that they are dependent on welfare. That is a disease. Nobody wants to embrace a life living on a benefit. 
Let me tell the Opposition this: this Government is committed to helping people who cannot help themselves and it is committed to finding ways to support people to get back into work. Why? Because we think benefits are about being a lifeline not a lifestyle. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity—[ 
Interruption 
] This is not about you Hekia. This is not about you at all. 
Hekia Parata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that we have been told often enough that the word “you” is reserved for yourself the Speaker and it is not to be used in denigration by one speaker to another in this House. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will not have anyone speaking on this. The word “you” is not banned entirely. The word “you” is not acceptable when people are making incorrect references to the Speaker. The member who was speaking said “This is not about you” etc. and he named the person in the same sentence. In that particular context I find it acceptable. The “you” refers to the person named: the member Hekia Parata. The member said “This is not about you Hekia Parata”. It is quite clear from the sentence that it is not about me the Assistant Speaker. I want the member to reflect on this. I know emotions are running hot in this debate and that is good. I ask Mr Prasad to continue his contribution to the House. 
Todd McClay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker from the Opposition did not address Mrs Parata correctly; in fact he was far too familiar with her. We have often been told about that in this House and I ask you to correct him please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that I thought I heard him say “you Hekia Parata”. If I did not hear him correctly I say to the member who is about to speak that when he addresses members of the House he should do so correctly and by their proper address. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I do believe that I addressed the member both respectfully and correctly. I said— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The member should not refer to a matter that has been ruled on. I said the member is to continue with his speech so he should do that. He should not traverse the matter that has been covered by the point of order. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member who spoke previously Hekia Parata raised a whole series of points and raised them with some passion and I respect that. However there is nothing in the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill that addresses many of the points that the member makes—nothing at all. It is hyperbole and a kind of filibustering but it does not add to the argument at all. 
I do believe in a caring society. I do believe in one that invests in parents in families and in their children. I do believe in that kind of society. 
Paul Quinn 
: Talking about the benefits? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: What is the point that Mr Quinn would like to make? What is the point that the member is making? I will respond to him if he asks a question. What is the question you want to put to me? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a debating chamber. Points are to be addressed to the Chair. This is not a private conversation going backwards and forwards across the Chamber. I advise the member that he has 10 minutes to make a presentation on the matter. I invite him to continue with his address to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I have no difficulty with the notion of a society using its wealth to address the problems that are being experienced by members of that society. We should create the best possible environment for our children; it is what they will grow up in. The investment that we make will pay handsome dividends: they will make a contribution to our kind of society. We should use the resources of the nation State our taxpayer dollars to give our children the best start in life. I support the system. It is designed to make that investment particularly in those people who miss out from time to time. When there are lives that are less fortunate or that have gone wrong the wealth and resources of the State ought to be used to give those children and families the best possible start. Therefore I support the provision of a fair system of social assistance. No matter what it has taken that is the kind of system we have designed since 1935. By and large it has worked well. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Members opposite may be interested to note that I also support the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money when our farmers through droughts and floods require assistance. In the same way that our children will those farmers will pay a handsome dividend to the nation’s wealth. That is fine. I despise those who abuse the system. I have worked in the system and with many of the people in the system. They are wonderful people whose lives have gone awry but some do abuse the system. I will not spend a moment defending anybody who abuses that particular system. There are any amount of provisions to address those particular things. Let us use those provisions to address that issue. 
However when people find themselves in the situation of relying on social assistance to provide that assistance based on a moralistic expectation of what they must do in order to earn it—that they must live in a particular way in terms of their personal life—is to begin to expect from the most vulnerable something that we do not expect of ourselves. These are the people who are forgotten. National Governments have always picked on this particular sore in our society by making the vulnerable the target of our contempt and designing programmes to punish them. National Governments have done it time and time again and this bill does the same thing. This bill creates a climate where people begin to believe that somebody is taking their money away that taxpayers are the honest citizens and that anybody who receives assistance is somehow to be despised. Those who receive assistance become fair game: we pick on them and we punish them. They tend to be brown less educated than other people poor and those who have suffered violence. 
I do not understand what it is about the members opposite and those leaders in our society who have had the very type of assistance that I speak about. The Minister is a case in point. She put a hand up and received the kind of assistance that this society ought to give to any mum with a young child who finds herself in that particular situation. We need to give those people a hand up and give them space to go off and do the best that they can. Of course the Minister has done very well and I congratulate her on that. But what I do not understand is why the very same people become the most feral when they attack others like themselves. There are cases in point and we can name them but I will not do so in this Chamber. There is something about those people. They become very punitive towards people who are like themselves. They have somehow made good having had assistance and now they say we must punish those who find themselves in the same position. 
This Government is introducing a very old concept. It is the concept of the deserving poor. If the Minister does not understand that I hope she will get some advice on it. The deserving poor are those whom we rile against morally and we expect of them particular standards of behaviour. This is a Dickensian model. It was designed out of Victorian England when the Industrial Revolution took place. That society used whatever human resources it could to produce labour for the factories and the human carnage that was created was incredible. That is the kind of Dickensian England if you like that this Government and this bill take us back to. 
This bill is a mess. The Minister is really unclear. She sounds quite confused in terms of a logical development of ideas to address what she sees as problems in our welfare system particularly about what to do with those who are on domestic purposes benefits. Nobody disputes that work is something to be strived for. The term that has come up in relation to this bill and the unyielding pressure to get into work are nothing new. Steve Maharey talked about it. In fact the whole Working for Families package was a realisation that the best way to really help people is through work but it is not the only way. 
Todd McClay 
: It’s a very very good way though. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: There are those who require different types of assistance at different points in their development cycle. I hope that the member who is chipping in on the other side understands that but if he does not then he can easily be given a lesson on that particular point. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do you understand it? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: You bet I do I say to that member. I can give that member a lesson on this. I ask him which part of it he does not understand. 
This bill talks about providing a fairer society and a fairer system. Well I challenge the next speaker from the Government side to tell us what the components of that fairer system are. We have not heard that. We do not know how many people will come out of this particular status we do not know what the targets are and we do not know how they will be achieved. Somehow that is to be done by becoming as punitive as this set of provisions is towards solo parents etc. 
The current system is a very very good one. It has been highly highly successful and is one of the most successful in the world to get people back into work. Work and Income triages intensively. This is the same department that provided this service under the previous Government and did so very very well. Why does this Minister not believe that the system and that department can be as intensive as they were then in getting people into work? There is no need for any of these provisions. This is simply dog-whistle politics because it panders to those of the conservative ilk who somehow believe that people out there are stealing money from them. The National Government has created the figment that a huge amount of rorting is going on in our society and therefore it has developed a punitive mindset. In the end members opposite will regret this legislation because it will be their communities families whanau and whanui who will experience its effects. In the end people will be no better off because there is nothing great about a punitive society. How does the sanctions regime put children at the centre of our social intervention? The members opposite cry about the importance of children and of early intervention but when they get an opportunity to really screw them down they do that—and this bill does it. 
There is no need at all for this set of interventions. We have a very effective Work and Income which could work very intensively to address the concerns that members have. But no this bill is about the opinions of those who call talkback radio hosts.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a terrible thing when a political party seeks to corral and maintain for itself a sector within society and refuses to let any other political party speak on that sector’s behalf. That is what the Labour Party has done with the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Labour members have decided that anyone who is unemployed or is receiving any benefit from the Government is theirs to speak for. The previous speaker Dr Rajen Prasad accused our Minister for Social Development and Employment of going feral which is absolutely ridiculous. He then accused her of bashing up on beneficiaries and corralling them. It is absolute rubbish. Nothing within the bill has anything whatsoever about being punitive. 
It reminds me very very strongly of what took me from being an ardent supporter of the Labour Party to becoming a paid-up member of the National Party. In 1987 the Labour Government’s Minister of Labour cut all those people off the Project Employment Programme scheme because it was too expensive to administrate. Many of the Labour members who were in Cabinet in those days occupy the front benches opposite today. They were there and they still have that dirt on their hands. They said that employment was just too good for those people. They paid them a benefit and got them to stay home. Those members did not want to see those people but they wanted their votes because they were theirs. Those people carried Labour’s brand but it did not actually give a stuff about them. That is what those members are saying today. They are saying exactly that. 
I remember my days as a sole-charge policeman in Patea after the closure of the Patea freezing works. The member who has just resumed his seat was talking about the young children involved and saying that this policy has nothing to do with them. It was those young people under the previous Labour administration who were relegated. They saw their parents in bed in the morning waking up having a cup of coffee and going back to bed. Because those parents did not have to tip out of bed in the morning and go to work those young children spent the next 10 years of their lives watching their parents do that. What did they aspire to? They aspired to get on to a benefit as quickly as they damn well could. 
For the Labour members sitting over there barrelling on the point is that it is fundamental to Labour Party policy to keep a large sector of the community poor and pissed off so that they never have to look at themselves for aspiration or growth within their communities. Other members ask where the jobs are. They forget that welfare policy in this country is about aspiration; it is not about relegation. Under the previous Government it was about relegation so that if a person was on a benefit that person should never ever be allowed to aspire to be anything other than low paid or on a benefit. Well National in Government has greater aspirations for those people who are the most vulnerable within our communities and are as the previous speaker said the least well educated and have the least prospects for the future. Let us give them something to aim for and let us encourage them. 
The Future Focus policy is a mixture of incentives and most of them are about encouragement. It is saying that if someone is on a benefit for 12 months he or she must reapply. If there are jobs people will be encouraged to make an application and we will take them there. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: They know that now. They can call them in any day they want to. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: The member says we have that now. Yes some of those provisions are there and under this legislation they are enhanced. That member’s party spent 9 years in Government and never took the massive leap of allowing someone on the domestic purposes benefit the chance to earn another measly $20 a week. Will the member vote against that? I look forward to hearing members opposite stand up and justify in their electorate offices week after week why they refused to allow people on those benefits to earn another $20 a week. Dr Prasad would withhold their benefits if they earned another $20 a week. 
Under National we are offering incentives; some of them are positive and some are negative. We remember for instance the huge growth in numbers of people moving from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit under the last Labour Government. If the 70000 people who went on to the sickness benefit under the last Labour Government were truly sick and truly incapable of work if every one of them had not been moved just because of a Government policy to remove people from the unemployment benefit and hide them on the sickness benefit we would have had an epidemic in this country so serious we would be on the international stage for having some malaise or sickness epidemic that was seeing thousands and thousands of people relegated into a situation where they could not work. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: The audit report disproves that and the member knows it. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: The member who has not shut up since I got on my feet protests that that is actually the case. I suggest that the malaise under the previous Government must have been verbal diarrhoea because it is leaking from every orifice. 
Paul Quinn 
: Ah! Peace at last. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: And we just love it. The fact is that this Government has been aspirational for New Zealand and it is putting in place a number of measures to make sure that we take this country somewhere. The previous member said it was dog-whistle politics. Well we hear dog-whistle politics when a Government is under pressure. I do not know how many papers those members opposite read but this Government is not under pressure. This Government is doing very nicely thank you. In fact the people who are under pressure in the political scene in New Zealand are those members opposite. That is where we hear the dog whistles coming from. That is where we hear for instance that the answer to our economic demise is to cut the salaries of the top 16 public servants. That is it. Dog-whistle politics is when the would-be Prime Minister puts his hand up and says a millionaire should be able to receive a welfare benefit. 
New Zealanders expect that there is a quid pro quo. New Zealanders accept that in a civilised society with a welfare system there is a quid pro quo. In other words they expect that there is a safety net. They expect that those who need assistance to better their circumstances will have that safety net. But New Zealanders have an expectation that people on a benefit will do certain things towards getting off that benefit. I wonder what those expectations might be. Well they are expected to look for work and make serious applications for the vacancies that exist. 
About now there should be a chorus from the Opposition asking where the jobs are. But I get back to the point that the Future Focus initiative is aspirational. The member who has just resumed his seat—actually it was quite a while ago—would say that people should never aspire to be in a better situation. He would say that we should have unemployment at a slightly inflated rate as it was a few months ago. He would say we should not have any initiative that will kick in until the job market is flooded with jobs and there is a labour shortage. Well National has a few ideas. National campaigned on those ideas and here is a party that is in Government because the country wants to realise the aspirations that National has for this great country. As long as those members sit on that side of the House screaming out that sort of diatribe they will always be there—and long may it be. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I just want to say that it is a sad day for this country when the Government chooses to bash beneficiaries while they are down as a way of diverting attention from the fact that it has not done its job in creating jobs for New Zealanders and creating opportunities for upskilling and training. That is exactly what that Government has failed to do so far. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is not the only person in this House who has been on a benefit. I want to say as a person who is a sole parent as a person has been on the domestic purposes benefit that it is not easy— 
Paul Quinn 
: She has lunch at the Wellington Club and gives us a lecture about welfare. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: —I say to Mr Quinn—to be a solo mother. It is incredibly difficult and the last thing beneficiaries need is a Government that is putting out a stigma about them and making society turn against them as if they have done something wrong. 
I have worked with many sole parents in the jobs I have had. I have worked with students at the University of Auckland and I have been a sole parent myself. I know that the vast majority of women on the domestic purposes benefit are working hard whether it be in study or in a job. They do so because they have aspirations for their children. They want to do well for their children so that they are role models for their children. I take offence at MPs on the Government side of the House implying that children of beneficiaries will not have aspirations as they grow older. That is what was said on that side of the House and I say to that side of the House as a mother who had to be on the domestic purposes benefit at one point in my life that my having been on a benefit does not mean that my son will not have aspirations for his own life. 
Currently there are 168000 still out of work and these people are not “living the dream” as Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Development and Employment said. It is not a dream for them. It is not a dream for children for their parents to be unemployed and living on the bare minimum with regard to putting food on the table and everything else. 
Hekia Parata has said that it is not normal for kids to see their parents out of work. I have to say that for short periods of time sometimes that just is the case. She also discussed the fact that there are currently 7000 jobs available through Job Ops and 6000 jobs on the books of Work and Income. Those 13000 jobs do not do anything in the way of addressing the 168000 people who are unemployed. Having 13000 jobs available is like a postage stamp on Eden Park with regards to the 168000 people who are unemployed— 
Paul Quinn 
: Be original. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I know that Mr Quinn has no empathy for people who are unemployed; he keeps barracking and yelling over on the other side of the House. But it would be good if Mr Quinn could listen to what I am saying. 
I want to quote one of the MPs from the Government side of the House—in fact from the maiden speech of one of the MPs. This quote is about the fact that women should have a choice. It starts: “More women are in paid employment than ever before and their contribution is immeasurable. However when we hear of someone currently working who becomes pregnant one of our first questions is: ‘How long will she be taking off work?’ There is a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—push for women to return to the workforce as soon as possible. But I ask members not to misunderstand me. I advocate for choice—for women to work part time or full time in paid work or not at all or to stay at home and raise their children. Most men make wonderful fathers. We should let them have a choice about the role they play in raising their family. Most of all we should let parents have choices.” 
That maiden speech was given in 2005 and it was given by our current Minister for Social Development and Employment. Where is the choice now when she says that they need a kick up the pants—in other words they need a boot in the guts while they are down and they need to get out there and get a job despite the fact that that Minister for Social Development and Employment has done absolutely nothing to create jobs in this country? 
One thing that is quite disconcerting for me is that this Government has deliberately used beneficiary bashing as a strategy with which to turn one New Zealander against another as a way in which it can divert attention—as I said before—away from the fact that it has done absolutely nothing to address the economic downturn and the problems we are confronting as a country with regard to high levels of unemployment and low levels of opportunities for upskilling and training. The Government has attempted to turn the working taxpayer against the struggling person who is currently out of work. 
I read something in a  
Dominion Post  
column a few weeks back by a wonderful journalist called Karlo Mila-Schaaf who said: “The fastest way to create an underclass is for a leader to respond inadequately to rising unemployment and then divide society into taxpayers and those who are ‘poor’ investments (the recipients of social services not ‘showing the results that taxpayers have the right to expect’).” That is exactly what members on that side of the House have done so far. It is not the fault of beneficiaries that they do not have jobs; it is the Government’s fault for not providing those opportunities. 
What we have seen alongside this is cuts to the opportunities for training and upskilling. We have seen the training incentive allowance slashed which means that sole parents who would otherwise have been able to access funding for training and programmes to diploma and degree level can no longer get that. We have to look at our Minister for Social Development and Employment and question her motives her background and why someone who can say that she utilised these types of support would then turn round and pull up the ladder to deny other women access to those types of support. It makes absolutely no sense—no sense at all. 
We will not be agreeing with this bill. Even the Attorney-General has pointed out that this bill and what the Government is trying to do discriminates against different groups based on gender family status and also in terms of the type of benefit that they are on. And we cannot agree with that; there is absolutely no reason why we would agree with putting in the boot while these people are down. 
What will be the outcome of these changes introduced by this bill? The Government is saying that it wants to encourage beneficiaries into work. As I said before that is all about creating jobs and we cannot understand why the Government has not done that. Last week I was on  
Breakfast 
 with a Government member of the House—Mr Simon Bridges. He stated very clearly that this policy was good because it was popular. This Government makes decisions based on the fact that they are popular. Even Paul Henry who is not known to be a big Labour Party supporter actually turned round and said to him: “Yes that might be right. It probably is popular but that doesn’t make it right.” That does not make it right and that is what we are faced with. 
The Minister for Social Development and Employment has ignored the fact that this does not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that it discriminates against different groups of people and that most of all it discriminates against the children who are going to be affected by this type of policy. This Government forgets that when it cuts this funding when it cuts these benefits it is not just the adults who are affected: it is the children whom those parents are actually there to look after. This Minister has gone around saying that this legislation is all about the children; I have heard her say that on many occasions. But then why would we do that? Why would we take food off children’s tables by punishing their parents and then subsequently punishing them? 
Instead of focusing on solutions that will help people into work and increase opportunities for single mothers and for their children what has this Government given us? It has given us absolutely nothing. It has dragged different members of our society through the mud it has provided empty promises and frankly that is not enough. Labour will not vote for this bill; we will fight against it every step of the way. Thank you very much. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The most important part of the title is “Future Focus” and I congratulate the Minister for Social Development and Employment on her hard work over the last 15 months on this package of initiatives that will give every single New Zealander an opportunity—when he or she is able—to get out there and work. 
In this House we all know that work is the way we provide for our families make the lives of our children better and make society more productive. The debate has been interesting to listen to over the last hour and a half and it has been a fairly robust debate from all sides of the House. We have heard a lot of things from members opposite about why we should not make these changes but I have not heard a single member admit that New Zealand has a problem with long-term welfare dependency. 
I absolutely agree with members opposite that largely it is not the fault of individual members of our society who have found that they have been on welfare year upon year. It is the fault of the members opposite and the previous Government who told those people that welfare dependency was a lifestyle choice that it was acceptable to be on welfare and that the Government would keep supporting them even though each of them was able to go out and work for their families. 
This legislation recognises that every single member of society in New Zealand can do more and should be encouraged to do more than merely sit on a benefit. What I have heard from members opposite wholly has been concern over National delivering on another promise it made to the electorate 2 years ago to look at welfare and to reform welfare to help New Zealanders get back to work. I support the bill fully. I cannot wait for it to get to a select committee so we can hear from New Zealanders. 
I want to very very briefly touch on a couple of issues. Members opposite have said that this bill is very unfair. I want to ask them a question: how do they expect taxpayers in New Zealand to afford to keep paying a growing welfare bill? How do they expect the average household in New Zealand—a low-income household because of years of economic underachievement by the previous Government—to afford to keep propping up a welfare system that protects and promotes long-term welfare dependency? 
In my home city of Rotorua we currently have 7500 beneficiaries. I accept that as members opposite have said unemployment has increased because of the recession around the world and in New Zealand. If we take out the numbers of those extra people who have come on to the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit because of the recession there are still 6000 people on a benefit there. Let us break down that figure further and look at the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit. There are almost 3500 people on the domestic purposes benefit in Rotorua. If we compare that figure with the figure for a city the size of Tauranga we see that it is much larger. It is a very excessive level. 
I have been out in my community talking to people and to mums about what they are concerned about and what assistance they need. I have spoken with a number of people some of whom whilst having young children at school or in day care have chosen to take a few hours’ work a week for no extra money. When asked why they would do that—because members opposite say that someone in that position will end up working for $1 an hour—they said they wanted to keep in touch and keep up their skills. 
I would expect some of those people of their own volition their own choice to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of 6. I applaud them and support them in that. Of course for people out there who cannot find work do not have the skills and cannot get a job this legislation will be there to help them and work with them and their children will be better off. 
I conclude by giving members an example of what long-term welfare dependency does to New Zealand families. I want members to think back for a moment to a few years ago and to the horrific murder of young Nia Glassie in Rotorua. Her entire family and those around them were on benefits. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The House will be silent. I have a point of order from the Hon Parekura Horomia. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: The member is going well outside the brief of this discussion. He is making a mockery of what happened in the past. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I know what the member is alluding to but it is a debating point. It is not a point of order. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I am not making a mockery of anybody—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am but 2 metres from the speaker and I cannot hear a word he is saying because of the barracking and screeching that is coming from the other side of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This has been a robust debate. I can hear Mr McClay quite clearly from here. I have been able to hear other people and I have to say that the member’s own party has been engaged in a substantial amount of barracking across the House. I think it is about even. I say to members that the point has been made. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I pay great tribute to the young Nia Glassie and I have little or no regard for the people who murdered her. But I say to members that if we look at her family and those around them we see there was long-term welfare dependency. The people who murdered her were on benefits and did not have jobs. Largely long-term welfare dependency which was promoted by the previous Government did nothing to help that family. This Government will stand up and fight for those people. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5;United Future 1; Maori Party 1 (Turia). 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 July 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
Motion agreed to.