McClay Todd: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
McClay Todd: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9924] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The most important part of the title is “Future Focus” and I congratulate the Minister for Social Development and Employment on her hard work over the last 15 months on this package of initiatives that will give every single New Zealander an opportunity—when he or she is able—to get out there and work. 
In this House we all know that work is the way we provide for our families make the lives of our children better and make society more productive. The debate has been interesting to listen to over the last hour and a half and it has been a fairly robust debate from all sides of the House. We have heard a lot of things from members opposite about why we should not make these changes but I have not heard a single member admit that New Zealand has a problem with long-term welfare dependency. 
I absolutely agree with members opposite that largely it is not the fault of individual members of our society who have found that they have been on welfare year upon year. It is the fault of the members opposite and the previous Government who told those people that welfare dependency was a lifestyle choice that it was acceptable to be on welfare and that the Government would keep supporting them even though each of them was able to go out and work for their families. 
This legislation recognises that every single member of society in New Zealand can do more and should be encouraged to do more than merely sit on a benefit. What I have heard from members opposite wholly has been concern over National delivering on another promise it made to the electorate 2 years ago to look at welfare and to reform welfare to help New Zealanders get back to work. I support the bill fully. I cannot wait for it to get to a select committee so we can hear from New Zealanders. 
I want to very very briefly touch on a couple of issues. Members opposite have said that this bill is very unfair. I want to ask them a question: how do they expect taxpayers in New Zealand to afford to keep paying a growing welfare bill? How do they expect the average household in New Zealand—a low-income household because of years of economic underachievement by the previous Government—to afford to keep propping up a welfare system that protects and promotes long-term welfare dependency? 
In my home city of Rotorua we currently have 7500 beneficiaries. I accept that as members opposite have said unemployment has increased because of the recession around the world and in New Zealand. If we take out the numbers of those extra people who have come on to the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit because of the recession there are still 6000 people on a benefit there. Let us break down that figure further and look at the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit. There are almost 3500 people on the domestic purposes benefit in Rotorua. If we compare that figure with the figure for a city the size of Tauranga we see that it is much larger. It is a very excessive level. 
I have been out in my community talking to people and to mums about what they are concerned about and what assistance they need. I have spoken with a number of people some of whom whilst having young children at school or in day care have chosen to take a few hours’ work a week for no extra money. When asked why they would do that—because members opposite say that someone in that position will end up working for $1 an hour—they said they wanted to keep in touch and keep up their skills. 
I would expect some of those people of their own volition their own choice to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of 6. I applaud them and support them in that. Of course for people out there who cannot find work do not have the skills and cannot get a job this legislation will be there to help them and work with them and their children will be better off. 
I conclude by giving members an example of what long-term welfare dependency does to New Zealand families. I want members to think back for a moment to a few years ago and to the horrific murder of young Nia Glassie in Rotorua. Her entire family and those around them were on benefits. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The House will be silent. I have a point of order from the Hon Parekura Horomia. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: The member is going well outside the brief of this discussion. He is making a mockery of what happened in the past. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I know what the member is alluding to but it is a debating point. It is not a point of order. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I am not making a mockery of anybody—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am but 2 metres from the speaker and I cannot hear a word he is saying because of the barracking and screeching that is coming from the other side of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This has been a robust debate. I can hear Mr McClay quite clearly from here. I have been able to hear other people and I have to say that the member’s own party has been engaged in a substantial amount of barracking across the House. I think it is about even. I say to members that the point has been made. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I pay great tribute to the young Nia Glassie and I have little or no regard for the people who murdered her. But I say to members that if we look at her family and those around them we see there was long-term welfare dependency. The people who murdered her were on benefits and did not have jobs. Largely long-term welfare dependency which was promoted by the previous Government did nothing to help that family. This Government will stand up and fight for those people. Thank you.