McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9844] 
8. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Can she explain how this Government is addressing long-term welfare dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Firstly this Government is not ignoring the issues; we are doing something about them. Secondly unlike the previous Government we do not treat beneficiaries like victims; we believe that with the right support they will be able to do it for themselves and work towards self-sufficiency. Thirdly this Government is not scared to tackle the hard issues. 
Todd McClay 
: Can the Minister explain how this approach is different from that of previous years? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In the previous 9 years under the Labour Government we saw many different approaches. First was the “They are all victims.” approach then the “It’s OK to be on welfare for years.” approach followed by the “We’ll wait for the economy to pick up.” approach and finally the “Let’s just pretend it’s not there.” approach. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly asked about reports they may have received on something and you have allowed that but the Minister’s entire answer was a political commentary—the Minister’s opinion of what the previous Government did. There were no policies called the things that the Minister just said in the 9 years before this Government came into office. She is responsible for her policies and that is what she should be answering about today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point of order made by the Hon Darren Hughes. The Minister can refer to and report on previous policies—that is perfectly acceptable—but to describe them in a politically loaded way is not acceptable. It is not consistent with the Standing Orders. To refer to the policies is fine and to report on the outcomes of the policies is fine but to describe them in incorrect terms is not fine. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In terms of differences in approach we saw that in the best of times when we had record low unemployment we still had quarter of a million people on welfare. We see now that over 100000 people have been on welfare for longer than 3 years. That tells us that there are issues there and we need to be putting the right incentives in place and providing the right support for those people to work towards a life of self-sufficiency. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: How many of the currently 168000 unemployed New Zealanders does the Minister expect to have in part-time or full-time jobs in a year’s time as a result of her measures to address long-term welfare dependency; can the Minister guarantee to this House that no child will suffer as a consequence of any of her changes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Of course we have 64000 people on the unemployment benefit at the moment not 168000. That figure comes come from the household labour force survey reading. The member mixes those figures up quite often and makes that error. Yes the 64000 people on the unemployment benefit are obliged to actively look for work. They are work tested. Under our new policy yes after a year they will have to reapply for their benefit. There are expectations on those people and I am confident that they can get themselves back into work. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on this matter. I did not state “168000 on the unemployment benefit”; I said “168000 unemployed New Zealanders”. I do not think she addressed either part of my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a bit difficult to ask me to ask the Minister to be more precise in an answer to a question like that because obviously the policy as I understand it that the Government has announced refers to testing people on the unemployment benefit and that is why the Minister responded in those terms. That seemed to be a reasonable response and I do not think I can ask the Minister to be any more specific than that. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: In terms of the work testing that the Minister of Social Development has discussed in the papers she has put out it is not just people on the unemployment benefit; it is also people on the domestic purposes benefit and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the matter. I have ruled that I am not asking the Minister to answer further. The member has further supplementary questions; if she feels that the answer was inadequate she can ask more precise questions. Members will see that when they ask clear precise questions I can help them get answers. I am prepared to do that. But the questions must be very clear and very precise and then I will do all I can to make sure that answers are obtained. 
Rahui Katene 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Rahui Katene. I again ask the front benches on both sides to please show some courtesy to members at the back of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take severe exception to that. After you rose and made your earlier comment no one on the front bench made any comment from this side whatsoever. It all came from the other side of this House not from this side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is not assisted by that. When I called Rahui Katene there were interjections. If he wants me to name the members on his side who interjected I am happy to name them but I will not do that. 
Rahui Katene 
: What assurance can she give the House that school-age children of the 43000 sole parents who will be work tested and expected to take up part-time work will not be placed at risk by the welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: All the research that we have seen says to us that children are better off when their parents are in work so we are supporting them into work and giving them the right help. We are also investing another $4.2 million to make it easier for providers to increase the number of out-of-school programmes and places—particularly home-based and small-scale providers. 
Rahui Katene 
: What assurance can the Minister give the House that children who are chronically sick or disabled— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but I say to both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Bill English that it is not helpful to the progress of the House for them to interject loudly like that when a member is being called to ask a question. I also add that although members might not have liked the answer being given by the Hon Paula Bennett I am sure that some members of the House were not able to hear it because the noise was so loud. I ask for a little more reasonableness. 
Rahui Katene 
: What assurance can the Minister give the House that children who are chronically sick or disabled will not be placed at risk by the expectation that their parents will be expected to take up work or face the sanctions that are part of the welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are a number of exemptions under the work test particularly for those on the domestic purposes benefit whose children are over 6 years old. One of them is for children who are unwell or disabled and need their parents more than other children do. There are also exemptions for medical reasons and so on; there are a number of them. If parents need to be with their children either during school hours or outside them they can be exempted from the work test. 
Todd McClay 
: Are these reforms balanced and fair? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes the changes are measured fair and balanced. We will ensure that support and training are available for people to help them get back into work. As I have just said people who have genuine reasons will be exempted. Some of those reasons are being medically unable to work caring for a child who has high needs and being recently separated and needing time to get one’s life in order and settle one’s children into school. For some of them it may be the recent death of a partner or leaving a situation of family violence. There are some good reasons why it is harder for some people to get back into work and we have made exemptions for them. And quite simply if the jobs are not there then nothing changes for those parents.