Baldock Larry: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13489] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 There has been a lot of talk about whether this bill is about giving money to beneficiaries with the ACT party often saying this is about robbing Peter to pay Paul. I would like us to look at some statistics with regard to beneficiaries because that has also been a topic of great discussion. If we go back to 1999 when National was in Government and look at how many beneficiaries we had and then see what is happening today with domestic purposes beneficiaries in 1999 we had 110067 and in 2004 we have 108851. 
Judith Collins 
: What about invalids? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: We will come to that in a moment. So there has been a reduction in domestic purposes beneficiaries of 1 percent despite ACT claiming about 18 months ago that we supported the Government in assisting some people on that benefit to hold on to more of their income when they did go out to work and that this was going to result in a huge increase of numbers on the domestic purposes benefit. That has not happened; we have reduced it by 1 percent. 
The number of unemployment beneficiaries has reduced by 48 percent since 1999. The number of sickness beneficiaries has increased by 28 percent. That is a concern to us. The number of invalids beneficiaries has increased by 39 percent. 
Opposition Members 
: Ah! 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Before members opposite crow too much we need to note that the net result since 1999 is that the number of beneficiaries has reduced by 14 percent. So the Government must be doing something that is working and working for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is too easy for the Opposition to suggest that numbers have decreased because people have switched benefit because there has been a reduction overall of 14 percent. I do not see anything in this Budget that will lead to a blowout in the number of beneficiaries. 
With regard to the domestic purposes benefit I welcome the initiatives in the Budget that will enable these hard-working single mothers and fathers to be able to hold on to more of the money they earn when they go out to work because it has always been ridiculous that on one side of the Chamber people say that we need to get those people out into “real” work as though the only real work is paid employment when we know they are working very hard raising their children. My mother did when she raised six children all on her own. She worked very hard and she still got on her bike at 6.30 in the morning and went to clean the annexe at the public hospital. 
It is ridiculous that we take money off those people when they go out to work so they end up working for some miserable hourly rate like $4 or $5. I welcome the fact that the Budget adjusts that situation. I believe it provides a greater incentive for more domestic purposes beneficiaries to find paid employment but not at the risk of neglecting their children who need to have time with that single parent. I speak out positively in support of that part of the Budget and completely refute ACT’s claims that somehow this will lead to a huge blowout in the numbers because people will have more children just so they can live off the State. That is a ridiculous argument. 
Deborah Coddington said that the benefit cuts in 1991 resulted in a reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies and so on and that this Budget would result in a huge increase. That is ridiculous too. I would like to partner with Deborah Coddington if she wishes in attacking the Family Planning Association for the ridiculous sex education it provides in our schools and join her in upholding a standard that adults might live by in this country so that our young people would have a better role model in the way they conduct themselves. That would be a worthwhile cause but to blame this Budget for what might happen in the future in terms of more teenage pregnancies more sexually transmitted diseases and so on is absolutely ridiculous. 
United Future will not be supporting New Zealand First’s amendment to change the commencement dates. If I seek to take another call on this matter I hope the Chair will acknowledge me so I can finish this discussion and give New Zealand First a good understanding of why we will not be supporting the amendment. When Peter Brown was speaking about the amendment he asked why the provisions could not all be brought in now. That is a huge worry if we think about it. New Zealand First was saying yesterday that it would be forming part of the next Government but Peter Brown does not seem to understand that one cannot come into the Chamber this morning with an amendment that disregards all the Treasury projections all the budgetary projections and just say that we should pay it all out now.