Maharey Steve: Estimates Debate —  
Maharey Steve: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7177] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I rise to speak now because I think one of the most interesting things in the social development debate which is what I will focus this 5-minute speech on and I will come back to housing in a later contribution is that we have a good comparison now between the main Opposition party—at least in size—and the Government at this time. 
We came into Government 4 years ago on the back of a debate about welfare which had been fundamentally about blaming and punishing beneficiaries. There had been an unbroken 10-year period of saying that if a person was on welfare it was very likely to be his or her own fault and of saying it was very likely to be the case that if pressure was placed upon a person individually to acknowledge it was his or her fault that person might come off the benefit. That policy for example drove unemployment up to 11.9 percent. There were 170000 people on the register in 1992. That policy gave us work for the dole the campaign on television about how we were supposed to dob in our neighbour if he or she was a beneficiary and a culture where beneficiaries felt that they were fundamentally under attack under siege by the Government. Every single year the beneficiary numbers went up. 
Words fail me to be truthful. I am speaking in this debate after the National Party spokesperson on social development who says she wants to see fresh ideas in the Budget and that she wants to offer fresh ideas yet what we heard was that the same analysis that National adhered to previously underlies Ms Rich’s analysis. It is all about the individual being wrong and about blame and the punishment because we know that that is the case. Ms Rich said that her alternative Budget effectively would have been based upon her welfare document. What did that state? 
When Opposition members were asked the reason for the kind of attack on beneficiaries that the welfare policies of the National Party signified we heard from Bill English and Katherine Rich that Jules Mikus; a convicted rapist and murderer is the motivating force for the National Party’s welfare policy. I know that that is an exaggeration but I did not say that—they did. Bill English and Katherine Rich had the cheek to go on the radio and say it is a cheap shot to say that Jules Mikus is the face of their policy. But we did not say that. We would not have dreamt of saying that somebody who was a convicted rapist and murderer was the motivation for introducing time-limited benefits but they said that. Bill English and Katherine Rich said we had to get people moving off the benefits because Jules Mikus was on them for all that time so that is why they want to have time-limited benefits. 
That was said despite the fact that the only country that does run time-limited benefits does not actually apply them because they do not work. Only 8000 people in the entire United States have been moved off a time-limited benefit because either the federal budget just carries on paying for people or they move on to a state benefit. They do not move off the benefit because the results of moving people off the benefit just mean poverty. Even the US under the kind of regime that is there now—which is clearly one the National Party likes in terms of its policy towards beneficiaries—does not limit the time spent on benefits. 
What we have from the National Party is a policy of compulsory immunisation of beneficiaries’ children and Mr English told us of removing $40 to $60 a week from the household if parents do not have their kids attend school—if they are truants—time-limited benefits and that wonderful old chestnut work for the dole. 
Work for the dole in this country was proven to be worse than doing nothing for someone in terms of getting that person into a job. Why is that? It is because as soon as we put people out in the community working for the dole the community becomes dependent on that cheap labour like my local schools did I am afraid. Up to 16 people who were working in a primary school worked for the dole and the school fought tooth and nail to hang on to that cheap labour. Work for the dole creates that kind of society. It does not get a person a real job a real wage a real career and a real future like the one that everybody here expects. It gets them locked into the dole. I will not have a Government that I am part of lock people into the dole. I want people to be in a real job with a real wage and a real future because that is what every single person should have an opportunity to have in this country. 
I know I have to finish my 5-minute contribution but I say the contrast between Labour and National is absolutely clear after listening to Ms Katherine Rich who unenthusiastically went through the National Party’s policies. They are policies that have been proven to be wrong. We should provide people with a positive opportunity and this Budget does so.