Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): People have tried to avoid hearing me speak before but I've never seen a Minister in the chair try and urge another member to take a call to avoid it. This is a very serious debate and it does reflect on the time that we have gone through over the last year which is normally the subject of this debate but the performance of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is going to become even more important as New Zealand battles with the recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.Now the Minister for Social Development got up and said the kinds of things that I'd want to hear. She described the kind of Ministry of Social Development that I would hope that we had one that was innovative and nimble and relentlessly focused on getting New Zealanders working because we know that unemployment benefit receipt and poverty all go together and following those three worst of all is poverty for innocent children. So we'd want a Ministry of Social Development that was getting people off benefits off welfare and into work.The sad reality is that the numbers give the lie to what the Minister has said. The truth is that even in the best of times when New Zealand had record terms of trade when the whole world wanted what New Zealand's industries produced and the things New Zealanders consumed were comparably cheaper than ever the conditions where we might think that it would be easy to get people off welfare into work we had 300000 working-age New Zealanders on a main benefit and growing.Here's the next number that I think should concern us: one in eight children born in this country are born into a benefit. Now there are people up and down this country who can't understand those numbers. Let me give you one example. Employers that I represent in the Epsom electorate say to me We can't get staff. I need you to help me with visas to bring foreigners to New Zealand to do the jobs." and I say "How can that be? There are 300000 New Zealanders on a benefit and growing numbers on the jobseeker part of that. Have you tried talking to MSD?" And do you know what they tell me? MSD are supporting their applications to bring more New Zealanders here. MSD are actually saying "Sorry buddy."—or "buddy-ess" in this case—"We have tried to get people off the dole to work for you. Even though you're paying up to 30 bucks an hour we've called this list of people six times; none of them want to show up." So people out there who are creating jobs and trying to get this economy going can't understand how there are 300000 working-age New Zealanders on a main benefit in the best of times.And here's the other group of people that can't understand it the one in eight children born into a family with a benefit: New Zealanders who wait save and sacrifice so they can bring children into the world with the kind of support that means they get a fair go in life can't understand how people are bringing people and kids into the world while on a benefit. Now I understand things happen in life and I think there should be a welfare safety net but how is it possible that one in eight—not just a few but one in eight—kids come into this country on a benefit? People can't understand that.So unfortunately it is not possible to say that New Zealand had the kind of high-performing Ministry of Social Development that gets people off welfare into work before this crisis occurred because the numbers simply do not support it. I would say that in the wake of this crisis we are actually going to have to work harder to ensure that we have people to do the work and people providing for themselves and their families so that we have less poverty. So not only was the MSD not doing very well beforehand it's going to have to do better.But turning to the current crisis of COVID-19 I need to ask the Minister: how is it possible that the Minister chose of all times the middle of this crisis to raise all benefit numbers—well receipt—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'd just remind the member that to impugn the motives of the person in the chair is against Standing Orders. This was determined to be an interactive process and that is why I turned to the Minister to see if she wanted to answer the two speakers' questions that had preceded it. So I will call David Seymour to continue but I just remind him that he is one member of the House.DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would never impugn the motives of the Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You just did.DAVID SEYMOUR: I apologise for the Chair taking that view. Of course it was entirely in jest and I hope that that is now clear and that the Minister in the chair the Hon Carmel Sepuloni does not feel that her motives have been in any way impugned because I would never do that. I didn't. I was simply making jest of the situation.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's the worst apology for an apology that I think I've ever heard. I call David Seymour—stop digging.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well I assume that the Chair is now satisfied even if not with the quality of the apology. But it is actually a serious matter.Kieran McAnulty: Still better than the haircut.DAVID SEYMOUR: It is a serious matter—and Kieran McAnulty of all people is talking to me about personal grooming across the Chair. I think that's—[Interruption] Oh Iain Lees-Galloway. Things are getting worse in here by the second. I don't know what could possibly happen next. I suspect Kris Faafoi will be recommending I take on an exercise regime.But I've got to get back to business here. The question is: can we ask the Minister why it was that in the midst of this crisis they decided to raise benefit rates by $25 across the board? It's possible that they will say it's because it's a good idea because people haven't been paid enough on benefits. Well if that's true the Government had 2½ years to raise those rates. If it's a good idea why did they not do it in any of those periods? In the two Budgets the Government brought down they didn't do it but they decided to do it in the middle of a crisis.The alternative is that they do think that it's a good idea but actually they weren't courageous enough to do it at any of those times and they've done it because the crisis gave them political cover to do what they didn't have the political courage to do normally. Or there's another alternative—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah I think I can anticipate the point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well they do say great minds think alike. But you cannot doubt the courage of a member of Parliament in this House and that member should apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I was listening. I thought he was on the edge but he's talking political courage and he wasn't actually talking about an individual MP. I'd have to check the Standing Orders but I think we'll continue while I'm looking it up.DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much Madam Chair and your ruling's correct: there's nothing wrong with characterising a Government as lacking political courage. I know Winston Peters will take any opportunity to raise a point of order and have a go at David Seymour because the thing is I get under his thin skin. That's the problem.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You have made a ruling and there it rests. He cannot relitigate it.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah I really would appreciate it if the member would get on with his speech because we have limited time for this debate and we've got more speakers and we still have the Minister to answer questions.DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Chair thank you and that's my only intention. I paused briefly to compliment you on the ruling I agreed with. But the fact is I've been trying to get to the point in spite of Winston Peters' two needless points of order and will do that now if he can just sit down for a moment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You just couldn't resist could you?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Either he desists or he should have his speech stopped.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah well he did essentially because the member stood up. So would you please get on with it?DAVID SEYMOUR: Aren't people sensitive? There are only two possibilities: either raising the benefit numbers was a good idea and they should've done it a long time ago or it was something necessary only for the COVID crisis in which case it should be time limited and it should be cancelled when the crisis passes. I ask the Minister: which one of those is it because if it's one then we have an answer: should've done it ages ago. If it's the other: should be time limited. If the Minister can simply explain which one it is I think the committee will be very much more enlightened. Thank you Madam Chair.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni—I will come back to Jan Logie before we finish."