Macindoe Tim: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13260. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 This is a significant measure that deals with a very important social and economic issue so I have to say that I have been really disappointed by the quality of the debate we have had from the Opposition the lack of intelligent engagement as to what the legislation is actually about as opposed to what it is not about— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s a new member of course. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: That is a very patronising comment from Ms Chadwick. Whether I have been here for one term or 10 terms I have a valid opinion to express and I have worked hard on this legislation. 
During this debate Opposition members have consistently resorted to slogans and clichés and in particular to making a whole lot of accusations about things that the legislation does not deal with. I point out because I think it needs to be written into the record that not one speaker on this side of the House at any stage in this debate has engaged in beneficiary bashing and I would be very disappointed if any of them had done so. Earlier tonight the deputy leader of the Labour Party criticised the Minister for not undertaking a complete rewrite of the Social Security Act. There is little doubt that such a task would be a valuable long-term exercise but it is also as surely everybody acknowledges a huge job that would need time and detailed work. I have to ask the deputy leader of the Labour Party who has been here for a long time why if that was such a priority Labour did not tackle that task in the 9 years when it was in Government. 
After Mrs King Catherine Delahunty described the legislation as punishing the poor but she produced no evidence for that criticism that was related to the contents of this legislation. I have to ask whether we have really reached the stage in this country that it is considered a punishment to move off a benefit and into paid employment because that is exactly the implication of what she was saying. 
I was especially disappointed to hear Rahui Katene—a member for whom I have great respect—repeat the allegation that this legislation is an attack on children. The implication that children whose parents depend on welfare are more secure than children whose parents are employed is contradicted by all the evidence in our society. The focus of this legislation is on encouraging people into work not if they cannot seek work—and sadly there are many in that category—and not if there is no work available that they could attempt. We know that the global recession has hit our country hard as well; that it has had a big impact in our towns and cities and that in some areas yes jobs are scarce. But where jobs are available or training is available to equip those who are out of work to seek new jobs in the modern economy it has to be a better option for the worker and for his or her dependants. 
I want to return to some of the comments that we heard last night. Metiria Turei spoke of beneficiaries being forced into degrading and demeaning work and into working for nothing. She described this as a recipe for impoverishing people. Not only was it disturbing to hear her prejudice against manual work but also it is fascinating to try to understand the twisted logic that sees a benefit as being more financially attractive than a wage. I have to say that we heard the same argument from one of the submitters to the Social Services Committee. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Rubbish! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: We did hear that exact argument from the first submitter to our select committee. I totally reject that reasoning. I firmly believe that all honest work is inherently valuable and I respect everyone who commits to taking an unappealing job if that is the only option available to that person. It is insulting and offensive to suggest that those who accept a low-paid job are demeaning themselves or have been demeaned by their employer or by society at large. Many people in my electorate work long and sometimes unsocial hours on the factory floor as cleaners or in a myriad of other roles that attract the minimum wage or just a little bit above that figure. They have my total respect and gratitude. Invariably they are also very good parents and grandparents and decent members of caring communities. They give much and they ask for little. They do not feel demeaned and they certainly would not feel more secure or worthwhile if they traded in their jobs and wages for life on a benefit. I am proud to represent those people from my electorate in this House and I thank them all for what they are doing. 
Dr Prasad in his comments a few minutes ago agreed that it is desirable to encourage beneficiaries into work where work is available. That is all this legislation aims to do. But in the same breath Dr Prasad repeated his earlier claim that this legislation is punitive. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: It is. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I say again to that well-intentioned but misguided member that there is nothing punitive about expecting those who can work and for whom work is available to do so. Those people for whom work is not available or who are unable to work for valid reasons will continue to enjoy the security and protection that they have now. Nothing will change for them under this regime yet from listening to some of the Labour speakers one would think that the sky is about to fall in. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: It’s very shallow thinking Tim. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I say to Dr Prasad that this legislation is not punitive at all but it does set out society’s legitimate expectations. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Which society? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I say to Dr Prasad that it is punitive to expect our nation’s taxpayers to invest more in the welfare system than is genuinely needed or justified. It is punitive to tolerate Labour’s approach that a lifetime on welfare is a legitimate lifestyle option for some who could—and I emphasise that it is those who could—take responsibility for themselves. Labour seems to think that they should be funded by low-income earners who are working long hours in challenging jobs to care for themselves and their families and who need every hard-earned dollar they get. If this legislation was making life difficult for those who genuinely deserve welfare assistance it might be punitive but it is not and under this Government it will not be. 
This legislation strikes a blow for fairness for hope and for a brighter future. We owe it to those workers especially those on fixed and modest incomes who have very little disposable income after they meet their accommodation and other essential living expenses to ensure that we are not placing an extra burden on them by tolerating abuse of our country’s benefit system. 
This is an important measure and we are now on the cusp of it becoming the law of New Zealand. It is aspirational. Labour members do not like that word but it is aspirational and it is realistic. I look forward to it making a positive difference for many in our country and I am sure that it will.