Bradford Sue: General Debates 
Bradford Sue: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:9723] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
:  
We in the Green Party cannot of course remain unmoved by last week’s ascension of Don Brash to the leadership of the National Party and although we congratulate Dr Brash on his new position I feel honour-bound to sound a note of warning as other colleagues have been doing this afternoon about what his elevation might mean for low-income workers unemployed people and beneficiaries in this country. It is not a secret but I think it is important that all voters remember that for the last decade Dr Brash has been promoting among other things further sell-offs of State-owned enterprises tax cuts for the rich deregulation of the labour market—including getting rid of the minimum wage—and an extremely right-wing manifestation of welfare reform. 
In perhaps his most famous utterance on the subject since he became a member of Parliament he advised the good people of the Orewa Rotary Club in January this year that abolishing the unemployment benefit could not be “done in isolation but it might well be done in conjunction with other measures such as having local governments become employers of last resort—offering a job to anybody who turned up at say the local post office at 8 a.m. with payment for that day’s work at the end of the day in cash.” This declaration seems to have been made in blissful ignorance of the facts that firstly post offices as such no longer exist; secondly local councils around New Zealand tend to be extremely wary of taking on job creation on behalf of central government having been badly burnt by such schemes in the 1980s; and thirdly if such a scheme were applied to all job seekers registered with Work and Income putting it into practice would cost thousands of millions of dollars more than the dole. 
Subsequent comments on welfare reform from Dr Brash reveal a slight retraction from this position possibly through the efforts of his colleague Katherine Rich who does have some real understanding of her social services shadow portfolio. However her new leader continues to make no bones about his commitment to time-limited benefits and to forced mass work-for-the-dole schemes. This is scary stuff. Although I know there are plenty of people out there who still think these things are a good idea I would have thought someone who had been heavily involved in economic matters in the 1980s and 1990s would know better. For example is Dr Brash not aware that a report written by the National Government’s own officials towards the end of its time in office showed that even the limited work-for-the-dole scheme in place at that time simply was not achieving the goals that Government had set for itself? Are he and his National Party colleagues not cognisant of the results of time-limited benefits in other jurisdictions where the real consequences are transience begging homelessness family break-up mental and physical illness crime and ultimately—for some—death? The idea of limiting the amount of time someone can spend on welfare in his or her lifetime to for example 2 years or 5 years may sound tempting to someone on $100000 or $500000 a year but have those people considered the reality of someone ending up in a situation where there is literally no means of support for that person and his or her family? 
These kinds of answers to unemployment and poverty trip off the tongue in Parliament and in the Rotary club but if they were ever implemented under a National-ACT Government they would bring the 1930s Depression revisited with bells on. Mass forced work-for-the-dole schemes and limits on access to welfare will mean in the end a society in which rich and poor are driven apart even further than they are now and in which crime prostitution and begging will become the only means of survival for many people. 
Dr Brash is right about one thing. We do have over 300000 people unemployed and a lot more should be done about it by the Government but the solution is not stopping the unemployment benefit or imposing workfare. Rather it lies in creating real jobs at real wages for all of those who need them. 
Alongside all of this National’s new leader appears to be trying to bribe his old mates back into the fold by offering tax cuts to the rich and a chance to loot more State-owned assets. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I should not have to point out that the use of the word “bribe” in the context of an activity of a member of Parliament is quite unacceptable and should have been picked up by the Chair much more quickly. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I apologise. I did not hear that. If the member said that would she please withdraw and apologise. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I withdraw and apologise. I hope all those New Zealanders who think the National Party under Dr Brash is the shape of the future will have a little rethink about what kind of country they really want to live in. Instead of pandering to corporate greed at the expense of those who already have too little National should if it has any social conscience at all consider supporting policies like ours—full employment as a primary goal of economic policy; the first $5000 of income to be tax-free for all New Zealanders; a universal child benefit restored for all children; and a benefit system that is reformed but in order to create less inequity not more. We want to move forward into a secure more fulfilling future for all New Zealanders in the 21st century not back to the 1990s or the 1930s.