Garrett David: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 My call will be fairly short. 
Hon Member 
: Like your party. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh no I have plenty to say. Su’a William Sio finished his speech by asking what people will do. When I interjected about the welfare system in Samoa where he was born or in Tonga where I have spent a good period of time I heard nonsense back because there is no welfare system there. What people do is become entrepreneurs. If one goes to Tonga one will find lunch stands set up people selling peanuts selling vegetables and selling home-made clothes. That is what they do when there is no welfare system. 
The tragedy of members on that side of the House is that they want people to be condemned to a life of poverty on a benefit; that is what they want. The reason that is so tragic is that the evidence is absolutely clear. Ms Bennett referred earlier to there being some evidence that people respond better and have better outcomes when they are in work. There is not some evidence; there is massive massive evidence to show that those who are mentally ill or have any kind of problem are much much better off if they are working rather than sitting at home. Those members want beneficiaries to be trapped into poverty to sit at home on a bare—[ 
Interruption 
] It is not a luxurious lifestyle. That is a myth; it is a complete myth. There are silly people who say that beneficiaries live their life on the back of the hog. That is quite wrong; certainly it is quite wrong. What those members want is for these people to sit at home on a subsistence income barely able to get by and then leap up and protest vociferously at the suggestion of a gentle encouragement and nudge back into work. That is all that this legislation is. 
As I said in the Committee stage as a lawyer I could drive a truck through the exemptions that are available. Anyone who really wants to try to avoid being nudged back to work will be able to do it. The tragedy is that these guys think that that is a great idea and that a life of getting up at 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning and sitting watching daytime soaps while existing on a bare minimum income is a good idea. Is that not terrible? What an aspiration to have for our people! Those members really want people to live like that so that they will stay dependent on nanny State and vote Labour for the rest of their lives. As long as they do that those members do not care—they do not care. As long as those people keep voting Labour and keep thinking that those clowns will benefit them and represent them then that is all right. What a terrible existence. Anyone with any brains knows that being on a benefit—any kind of benefit; whether it be the domestic purposes benefit the sickness benefit or the invalids benefit—is not a luxurious lifestyle. 
This legislation seems to be the type that brings out anecdotes from both sides of the House but more so from Labour members. I will chip in with another one and it goes back 25 years. This was when the disease started. The welfarism disease began 25 years ago. In 1984 I was waiting in Invercargill an area familiar to the Assistant Speaker Eric Roy for a job. I was the next replacement on an oil rig working off the south coast of New Zealand. I was waiting for the first guy who quit or who got injured; then I would get the job. I was staying at a motor camp in Invercargill waiting for that to happen. It could have happened at any time: the next day or the next week. In fact it never happened and I found a job elsewhere. But I went down to the labour exchange and said that I would like a job please. They asked me what my registration number was. I asked them what they were talking about. They said that I had to be registered. I said that all right I would register. They said that no I had to register for the dole. I said that I did not want the dole; I would like a job please. This was 25 years ago. They looked around and said “This guy is looking for a job?”. Anyway to cut a long story short one was not allowed to look at the job vacancies until one registered for the dole and became a beneficiary. I told them that that could not be right I wanted a job and I did not care what it was—a casual job a part-time job a full-time job; I did not mind. They told me no I would have to sign on for the dole. So I have been on the dole for 1 week in my life. Later that day I had three job offers and they asked me which one I would like. 
The welfarism disease began 25 years ago. This sorry shower over there wants to perpetuate that disease. The kids who are now the children of beneficiaries were not born in 1984 and those members would like to condemn them to the same misery for the rest of their lives as long as they continue to vote Labour. This is may I say it a fairly timid measure. It is a fairly timid attempt to move away from the disease of welfarism that condemns people to sleeping in until 10 in the morning and watching daytime TV all day whilst being on the minimum income. 
This legislation is to be commended but it does not go far enough. What a terrible aspiration for a political party with the proud history of the Labour Party. The founders of the Labour Party were workers—real workers. They use the term workers in this House. No one else calls them workers anymore; they are all employees. But in the old days in the 1910s the founders of the Labour Party were workers. They would turn in their graves if they saw the system that we have created. Michael Savage Bob Semple and those guys would not believe it. Peter Fraser’s statue is across the road. The thing he hated most in life was shirkers. That is what he called people who did not want to work or get off their backsides. He would turn in his grave. 
These measures are an attempt to encourage people away from a life of sleeping in until 10 o’clock and watching daytime TV and we applaud that. We do not want to condemn people to that kind of life to encourage them to sit at home sleep and watch daytime TV when there is an alternative. We would like people to get out and to advance themselves as Minister Bennett has and as have other members in the House who have been on benefits from time to time. But the Labour members hate that. They cannot stand it that the Minister has bettered herself. She went off the benefit gained herself a university qualification and now she is here in Parliament and those members hate that. They despise her because from their point of view she is a traitor to the beneficiary class. What a terrible terrible attitude. We are very happy to support this very modest set of measures to try to turn round that whole disease that condemns people to living in poverty. Thank you.