Parata Hekia: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parata Hekia: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13176] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Na te mea koi nei te wa tuatahi i tu au i roto i te Whare i tenei ahiahi kei te tangi atu ki taku tipuna ki a Takuta Te Kapunga Dewes; katahi noa nei ka mate i Te Tai Rawhiti. Na reira he poroporoaki paku he poroporoaki iti tenei ki a ia. Haere haere haere atu ra. Ka hoki mai ki a tatou. 
[ 
Because this is the first time I have stood in the House this afternoon I grieve for my ancestor Doctor Te Kapunga Dewes who has just passed away up in the East Coast. This is a small farewell from me to him. Depart depart and farewell. Now back to us 
.]  
I see that Luamanuvao Winnie Laban is in the Chamber. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to publicly congratulate her on her appointment at Victoria University and to wish her very well in that new appointment. Nga mihi ki a koe. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is this a campaign launch? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Actually it is courtesy thank you. Turning back to the kaupapa of today—the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which we have been discussing—I have been watching on television with increasing amazement at the way the Opposition has characterised this very sensible bill. I am delighted that the Minister for Social Development and Employment took a call a few minutes ago to remind the public who hopefully have been tuning in and listening of what this bill is actually about because it bears no resemblance to the kinds of descriptions and characterisations that members of the Opposition have indulged themselves with nor to the kinds of blame and assertions that those members have found themselves sinking to in describing what we on this side of the Chamber are doing. 
Yes we are committed to supporting those who are unable to support themselves. Yes we think that is a fair and appropriate commitment which we take on on behalf of the taxpayers who provide the funds that make that possible. And yes we are committed to the idea that being on a benefit lifestyle that provides a 2-week horizon is not a quality of life for anyone. We would like those people who find themselves in the situation of requiring a benefit as a lifeline and not a lifestyle to be given the opportunity to be encouraged to take up work. What is unreasonable about part-time work-testing for a parent on the domestic purposes benefit with a child over 6? What is unreasonable about that? What is heinous about that? Why is it acceptable for sole parents who are not on the domestic purposes benefit and whose child is 6 or younger and who are in work to be doing that? Do we think they are callously disregarding the needs of their children? No we do not yet the Opposition seems to feel that when we talk about parents on the domestic purposes benefit being required to go and see whether work is available to prepare themselves for work then that is somehow unacceptable. There is a principle of reciprocity in the way that this democracy operates. I have been paying taxes— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: She should have as much choice to decide whether she goes out to work or whether she stays home to look after her children. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: It might be helpful if the member from the Opposition had the courtesy to listen to someone apart from herself and I would like the opportunity to contribute my 5 minutes to this debate. 
I have paid taxes since my early teenage years as have many members in this Chamber. I am happy to pay taxes that will contribute to helping the public services of this country even to the provision of benefits as are many other taxpayers. But at some point in that arrangement some reciprocity is expected. I feel that this bill has set the line at the appropriate place. It says that where parents on the domestic purposes benefit have a child who is 6 years old or older it is entirely acceptable to expect that those parents might make themselves work-ready. As the Minister has already clarified if there is no suitable work then there will be no penalty. If they are unable to find it their benefit will not be cut. What would any reasonable person—and I use the word “reasonable” definitively because clearly reason has escaped members on that side of the Chamber—find wrong with that? 
Similarly there will be a part-time work test for sickness beneficiaries who have been medically assessed as being able to work for 15 hours per week or more. What is unreasonable about that? Indeed much of the research tells us that participating in work is as much a part of the prescription of returning to good health as any kind of medical or clinical intervention that might be required would be. What is unreasonable about that? This Government stands absolutely behind this bill and this Minister in taking these steps in encouraging those people whom otherwise members on that side of the Chamber would be prepared to see languishing on a 2-week lifestyle.