Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13761] 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: In the last 5 years how many people not born in New Zealand received an unemployment invalids and/or sickness benefit and at what cost? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 While it is true that Work and Income collects the place of birth for each applicant making it possible to check the payments for all recipients including New Zealand citizens and those with permanent residence to calculate the total cost of those born overseas and entitled by residency to those benefits the system would have to make an individual search for each of the 5 days of the 52 weeks for each of the 5 years for every person on the records including those who are currently there and those who have moved out of the system and it is simply not possible to undertake the search with the time or the resource available. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he is aware that this is 2004 and we live in a computerised age and how can he stand there and tell the House he has not had enough time to collate an answer given I lodged written questions asking for the same information 3 weeks ago that remain unanswered and why he is continuing to hide or be evasive in respect of this matter? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: To the best of my knowledge it is not the same question. It might be in a similar area but the member has not identified precisely the question;I do watch the questions as I go through and to my recollection it is not the same question. Secondly the member does take lightly the fact of the complex calculations needed and the huge amount of manual search to go through—I repeat for the member—each individual who has been on the record either past or currently for every day for every week for 5 years. It is a mammoth undertaking. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is the Government doing to ensure migrants do not require a benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government has inherited the problem and we have made an undertaking about implementing two strategies to deal with this. Firstly with regard to immigration we are trying to better match with jobs people who migrate here so that many people come here with a job offer—not a hope for a job which was the case previously. Secondly we are looking at those people who are currently here and I would like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that in Auckland from the start of this year there are 38 specialist migrant Work and Income case managers who have been working directly with migrants. We have been able to achieve a 30.1 percent reduction in the number of people who are in the category of migrants who are receiving an unemployment benefit—a 30 percent reduction in 1 year. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the rules clearly state that a migrant has to be in New Zealand at least 2 years before he or she is eligible for the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit can he explain why there are hundreds of migrants who have been in New Zealand less than 2 years getting those benefits? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: People have to be residents and meet other criteria but I am very pleased to be able to say to the member that we inherited quite a significant problem. For example regarding sickness beneficiaries in the year 2000 there were 267 people in that category who were on a sickness benefit; in 2004 there are 65. This represents a 75 percent reduction. We are being much more effective in dealing with these issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Minister could address the specific question the member asked. [ 
Interruption 
] I am making comment. There will be no comment from anyone else. Perhaps the member would like to ask the question again. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the rules clearly state that a migrant has to be in New Zealand at least 2 years before he or she is eligible for the unemployment benefit or sickness benefit can he explain why there are hundreds of migrants who have been in New Zealand for less than 2 years who are getting those benefits? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I did mention in passing that people have to have a residency qualification—they have to be permanent residents—and there are other qualifications that make them entitled to those benefits. The point I am trying to make to the member is that nothing was done about it by the previous administration. We are doing something about it. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Does the Minister know of Government departments that provide educational material to the public on the positive contributions of migrant communities to New Zealand in order to counter the campaigns of hatred towards migrants run by New Zealand First? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no need to raise a point of order. I will not have that last comment made. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not speak to the point of order. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I want to speak to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot. I am ruling. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I will not withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the House then. 
Hon Matt Robson withdrew from the Chamber. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister confirm that the amendments to the Immigration Act passed last year should reduce the number of migrants on welfare because it restricts residency to those with a job offer relevant to their skills; and can he also confirm that despite its election promise to give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications New Zealand First voted against that very legislation? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can in fact confirm that New Zealand First voted against the bill. I can confirm that we replaced the policy that was in place when New Zealand First was part of the Government. New Zealand First was in fact part of the problem. This Government is solving the problem by matching— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That Minister has no responsibility with regard to the subject matter. More importantly he has just told the House that collating the information that would form the subject of his answer has been impossible even though he was asked for it in writing 3 weeks ago. What we are seeing is an evasive campaign by the Minister and his department. They know some things but mostly they do not know much. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That point of order might be another point of order. It is not relevant to this. The Minister was addressing the question. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am very pleased to be able to say that in fact we have had some great success. For example in the year 2000 approximately 579 people were on an unemployment benefit as a result of the previous policy; currently there are 222. We have a significant reduction in those issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister able to answer some questions on percentages with a degree of accuracy as claimed by him yet he cannot answer questions that were matters of written request 3 weeks ago and why does he not consider it a very serious matter that the current cost of emergency benefits over 5 years is $382 million and is likely when added to the rest of the benefits to be a cost in excess of $1 billion whilst his party has been in Government? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can confirm in written answers to the member that in November 2002 there were 6927 people—I gave him the answer for that—and there are currently 5458 which is a 20 percent reduction. We are making significant progress on a problem we inherited from a Government that he was a part of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him that. I asked him whether he was concerned as to two critical figures. One is the emergency benefit annualised and multiplied by five; and second the likely reality that if we add all the other things—the unemployment benefit the invalids benefit and the rest—we have already passed $1 billion for the immigrants in this country. That is what I want an answer on and I have written to him countless times in the past. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might like to comment a little further. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I feel I did answer the question. I said to the member that in terms of the question he asked originally about the numbers over the 5 years for all the individual categories in my opinion he has no appreciation of the size the enormity of the job of doing that calculation. Secondly on the information we have readily available I have indicated to the member that the trend is significantly downward. In some cases it is 20 percent and other cases it is 75 percent less than what it was when we came to Government. 
Dail Jones 
: I seek leave to table in the House an amendment moved by New Zealand First as recorded in  
Hansard 
 on 2 September 2003 which states: “Allowing for Government residence policy that will better enable the selection and active recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gave the member quite a long chance to state his question. He does not have to complete it all or he will be doing something different. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it with reference to Speaker’s ruling 18/5 under the heading “Exclusion from the Chamber”. There is a longstanding understanding in this House that when members are asked to withdraw and apologise they do so and they cannot obviate that obligation by exiting the Chamber; whereas we have just experienced the Hon Matt Robson leaving the Chamber and not apologising to the House. I would like a clarification of that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I dealt with the matter and I ordered him out of the Chamber. That is where the matter ended. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ordered that honourable member out of the Chamber. Does that mean he will never come back again or on what basis will he come back again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please do not be silly. I ordered him out of the Chamber as a yellow card for the rest of question time. That is what I usually do at that stage. I want to say to the member that I dealt with the matter; immediately the member refused I sent him out. That ends the matter at that point.