Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will be moving that the bill is referred to the Social Services Committee, and that the committee reports back to the House finally on or before 30 July 2010.

In the context of this legislation my focus is on the future: the future of New Zealand; the future of the welfare system; the future of individuals, families, and children; and the future of our society. Do we want a society that values work and the ability to provide for ourselves and our families? Do we want a society that says we will look after those who are most vulnerable and most in need? Do we want a society that teaches its children by example that the path to a better, more prosperous, and fulfilling life is through work, not welfare? I believe that the answer is yes, and I believe that that vision for the future is shared by most New Zealanders. Surely we all aspire to a better future for our children.

When this Government took office 18 months ago, it inherited a welfare State that showed no sign of diminishing, despite having enjoyed a decade of favourable economic conditions and strong employment. So through the best of times Labour failed to do anything about long-term welfare dependency; it simply squandered that opportunity, because it dared not challenge the status quo. That status quo, which Labour has been so wedded to, embodies an attitude towards welfare that is, quite frankly, dangerous. An entitlement mentality has become entrenched to the point where, for some, welfare is viewed no longer as a last resort reserved for the most vulnerable but as a right of all citizens. National recognised that attitude as an unhealthy, unsustainable burden on those who work hard to support the system. It is those hard-working New Zealanders who gave National the mandate to bring this legislation before the House today. National’s manifesto commitment to fairness, and an unrelenting focus on work, on what people can do and not on what they cannot do, is what New Zealanders voted for at the last election. It is that promise that we deliver today.

It is ironic to think that after enjoying such sunny economic times Labour left office and slunk off into the sunset while, behind it, the storm clouds of a major economic recession were already breaking. New Zealanders were left to struggle through an economic storm that washed away the remnants of a strong labour market, leaving many people high and dry with fewer jobs to cling to. Those hard-working New Zealanders struggling to pay the bills who battled on, supporting themselves and their families, watched their tax dollars flowing out each week to support a growing number of people on welfare, and asked themselves whether that was fair. They asked whether the people they were supporting were really those in the greatest need.

Fairness is a vital part of this legislation. It is a sense of fairness that calls us to rebalance the incentives and the obligations to ensure that only those who need help will get it. We have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure we are spending their welfare dollars carefully, because every dollar we spend on welfare has been earned by a hard-working New Zealander. We have a responsibility to get this right, because this system has been left to its own devices for too long. We have a responsibility to those who are on welfare and have the ability to do more to actually follow through and give them the support they need so that they are not consigned to a lifetime of limited choices and limited potential.

Why are we making these changes? We want to ensure fairness in the system, with the right balance of obligations and incentives to address an unreasonable sense of entitlement, and to introduce a set of expectations. Yes, we do expect those on the unemployment benefit to make every effort to find work. Yes, we do expect those on a domestic purposes benefit whose youngest child has turned 6 to be working towards work or taking part-time work. Yes, we do expect those on a sickness benefit to be getting well so that they can return to work. These are fair and reasonable expectations. We have changed the processes around sanctions, so that when obligations are not met a first time a 50 percent cut in the benefit kicks in. That means those who do not turn up for a scheduled job interview, for example, could lose half their benefit unless they have a very good reason for failing to meet their obligations. If, again and again, they fail to turn up, their benefit will be cut completely, except for those with dependent children, who will lose a maximum of half of their benefit, with no changes to add-ons like the accommodation supplement, so that they are not penalised unfairly. But let us be clear: all we are asking is for people to meet their obligation to make an effort to get off welfare and into work. If the work is not there, their benefit will remain.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The policy this bill will implement is to give beneficiaries a kick in the backside. The policy this bill will implement is to tell beneficiaries the dream is over. The dream is over; the dream the Minister for Social Development and Employment herself took when she was in the position to take it; the dream she took so that she could get ahead and get a job and bring up her family; and the dream she would like to deny to others. Well, I say to her that I have never heard a beneficiary tell me that living on the benefit is a dream.

We have just heard nothing but pure spin from that Minister—pure spin. She said that in the time of the previous Labour Government we did nothing about beneficiaries, unemployment, or the whole benefit system. I shall tell that Minister what we did. We took the number of unemployed people on the benefit down from over 400,000 New Zealanders to around 280,000 in the time we were in Government. That was not doing nothing; that was ensuring we put in the right support to help people to get jobs and to get training. We did not pull out the support that they needed, which is exactly what the National Government did at the first opportunity. It cut the training incentive allowance, took away scholarships, and did not put the focus on creating jobs, which it ought to have done. We now have 345,000 people on benefits in New Zealand. That number has gone up from 280,000 under that Minister’s watch, and she has the cheek to tell this House that the previous Labour Government did nothing about beneficiaries.

Well, if she thinks this bill will solve the problem, then she really is in cloud-cuckoo-land, as Paul Henry said last week. I tell the Minister that when one work tests people for a job, the first principle is that there have to be jobs for people to go into. It is interesting that even Treasury said not to do it now, that the timing is not right to try to work test sickness beneficiaries into jobs—and I will get on to that shortly. If there are no jobs out there, and the Minister is bringing in her “kick in the backside” and is “ending the dream”, as she says, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that go from 9 to 3, with school holidays off? Where are the jobs for people who are unwell who have to take medication and have to have medical treatment? Where are the employers who are coming forward as the Minister blames and shames beneficiaries because they are in that predicament? That is exactly what the Minister is doing. She stands up and talks tough, although she herself was quite happy have the advantage that a good social security system gives this country.

I have to say that the stated intent of this bill is not what the bill means. In fact, the Minister claims that the bill will give a fairer system of social assistance to New Zealanders. Let me just read what the Attorney-General said about the Minister’s own bill and her policy. The Attorney-General is the most senior Minister in Cabinet in terms of being a lawyer. He is the Attorney-General. He is the top lawyer in the National Government. Let me just read what he says—[Interruption] I hope the shrieking Minister listens, because she obviously did not read this when it came to Cabinet. This is what her own colleague the Attorney-General said: “The stated objective of the Bill as a whole is to create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. While this is an important and significant objective, the different treatment of people on the [DPB single parent] compared to women on the [widows benefit and DPB women alone] does not deserve this objective because it does not”—it does not—“create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment. Nor does it recognise the benefits of work for women on [the widows benefit] and the [DPB women alone]. Expressed another way, the limit is not rationally”—listen to this—“connected to the Bill’s stated objective. Nor do the distinctions appear to serve any other valid, non-discriminatory objective.” That statement was not from the Opposition; that statement came from the Attorney-General, who is a Minister in that Government on that side of the House.

This is not a bill that is fair to all people who are in receipt of a benefit. This is not a Labour bill. This is not our policy. It is National’s policy. It has chosen to discriminate against certain groups of women and men on the benefit. It has chosen to say that a person who receives the widows benefit equals good, but a person who receives the domestic purposes benefit and is a single parent—who is on the benefit because she is divorced, because her husband took off with somebody else, or because she does not have a partner—is bad and should be work tested. But not if she is a widow, and there is a subliminal message in that. It comes from the fact that John Key’s mother was a widow. She was not one of those domestic purposes benefit recipients who got themselves pregnant and then were on the State’s purse. That is the subliminal message, because there is no other reason why a Government that is going to discriminate—as this Government wants to do—does not say that it includes all people.

The other discrimination is that men who are widowers will be work tested under this policy, but women who are widows will not. That is not Labour’s policy; it is National’s policy. Why would the Government discriminate in such a way? It does not make sense, and the Attorney-General said it did not make sense.

This bill sets out some objectives. It has a clear focus on work. You know, most New Zealanders want to work. Members should never forget the 3,000 New Zealanders who queued outside a supermarket only a few weeks ago to get 150 jobs. They queued for hours because they wanted to work. They could not all have a job, but they wanted to work. And most New Zealanders do want to work. They want a job. But this policy says they ought to get a job. Well, if the Government can help to train and prepare people for the jobs, can help them into work, that is fine. But to bring in this policy when everyone knows that 168,000 people are unemployed now—and that does not count all the jobless—is crazy indeed.

What did Treasury say about this policy? Treasury is not necessarily known for its sympathy, I have to say, for those on benefits, but this is what it said: “we do not support the introduction of the SB work-test into legislation at this time. We recommend that the issue of work testing for those on health and disability-related benefits be considered by the proposed Welfare Working Group,”. That would have been the place for us to look at these changes. “Currently”, Treasury goes on to say, “the SB is not appropriate for a part-time work-test, as it is designed for people who will eventually return to work full-time (the majority do). Applying a part-time work test to the current SB would require someone to seek additional hours of work for minimal financial gain. For example, a Sickness Beneficiary on minimum wage would receive approximately $1/hour in additional income, for each hour worked beyond the abatement threshold (70% abatement applies…)”. That means that a person who is sick who goes out to work will work for $1 an hour, under this policy.

Labour will not support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We will vote against this bill going to the select committee. The bill has one or two very small matters of assistance to beneficiaries. It lifts the threshold for abatement to $100 from $80, but if the Government really intended to do something about the level of abatement, it would lift it to $130, not $100. The bill puts into legislation, rather than leaving it to convention, the pegging of the benefit to the CPI, and it lifts the threshold of abatement for a non-qualifying spouse on superannuation. But, apart from that, this bill is ill-thought-out. It is not even based on evidence or research, as the Minister’s own regulatory statement says.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to support the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill today. I can think of no better Minister in this House than Minister Bennett to put forward this bill. She is a Minister who understands the welfare system, who has empathy and compassion, and who will deliver for those people on benefits a brighter future, which the previous Government under Helen Clark could not deliver. That Government failed people on benefits, it failed to give them aspiration, and it failed to deliver that brighter future. It is very interesting that Annette King stood up and asked where the jobs were going to come from. She asked “Who gives 9 to 3 jobs?”. I tell the House that my office does. My office is open from 9 until 3, and I employ people who are coming back into the workforce. I employ—

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

The Minister, in introducing her Government’s Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, talked about the future. I suspect that she was referring to a National Government future, a future of division—of “divide and rule”, and of the rich versus those who are in need—a future aimed at destroying our clean, green image by digging up our precious conservation areas, and a future aimed at undermining our democratic processes by running roughshod over the Auckland super-city. That is not the kind of future that the Labour Opposition supports, and that is not the kind of future that New Zealand society supports.

In 1999 Labour inherited about 161,000 people on the unemployment roll. In 2008, when Labour left office, there were only 20,000 people on that roll. That is the number we gave over to National when it took office. At the end of 2008, the number of unemployed people had gone up to about 37,000. It was acceptable at that time, because people generally recognised that there was a recession. So we went with that, because there was a recession. However, there was no mini-Budget at the end of 2008, and there was no jobs budget in 2009; but there was much ado about a Job Summit, and many of us today are still waiting to see what the jobs were that were created from that Job Summit. To this day I do not know whether any jobs were ever created in our community. Things are worse now, and not better. There was a freeze on public sector pay. The Government kept talking about putting a cap on the workforce instead of making a cut in the workforce. More and more people have been added to the number of unemployed, until at the end of last year about 168,000 were on the unemployment roll. Those numbers continue to rise.

There was also a bit of a splash about a $50 million cycleway. It was predicted, supposedly, to produce 4,000 jobs. Again, we ask where those jobs are. And I have to say that many in my community are asking who can afford a $100 or $200 bicycle for the cycleway.

If we are talking about the future, as this Government seems to believe it is doing by targeting the unemployed, solo parents, and sickness beneficiaries, then let us ask the Government what it will do for the children and young people who will be affected if these benefits to needy families are cut. What will the Government do for families who will struggle with meeting the day-to-day rigours of life and the cost of living, and whose children will end up going without? The future is about our youth, about strengthening our economy, and about looking after and strengthening the workforce, which is predominantly Māori, Pacific, and Asian in areas such as Manukau and Māngere. What is this Government doing to strengthen our future workforce so that we can expect this future generation to pay for future superannuation? What will this Government do about strengthening the future workforce so that young people today will be able to pay for the future health-care that this country will need? What will this Government do to prepare the younger generation, the future workforce, in order for them to be able to pay for the education that the young generation will need in the future? These reforms will not achieve that. They will not achieve that, at all.

One has to wonder why, last week, the Government made this particular announcement. My colleague the Hon Annette King said that this was dog-whistle politics, and she is absolutely correct. She is absolutely correct. Why was this announcement made when the Government was constantly under attack by New Zealanders because it was looking to mine all our conservation areas? It was a deflection; it was about deflecting the issue. Again, this is sending out dog-whistle messages to the rednecks out there, to those who do not understand the hardship that many families are going through and the hardships that some families have no control over.

I want to read an example from someone who came into my office, but I will not say who this person is. This person was made redundant in 2009 from Fletcher Construction in Penrose. He was paid a redundancy and all of that went on the bills. He has been going back and forth to Work and Income for any assistance that he and his family can get, but because his wife works and because she earns a mere $300 net per week, Work and Income has advised him that he is not eligible for any kind of support. He is on the books of New Zealand Labour Hire, but only as a casual because assignments are very short, and few and far between. My office referred this family to the Māngere budgeting service and when it went through the books to determine his income and outgoings, there was a total household deficit of $287.41.

That is an example of the families in my electorate, and no doubt throughout Manukau and other parts of New Zealand, who are struggling. This Government seems to label everybody in this way and say that they are trying to—

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

With respect to my friend from Labour, I do not think this is dog whistling. I think this is a siren to National supporters. This is all about an ideological position. It has nothing to do with evidence. It is not dog whistling at all. It is about making it loud and clear to National supporters, perhaps even to their funders, that the Government will attack the most vulnerable families and do damage to the children of the poorest families in order to win itself a few extra votes. That is where this National Government is coming from.

I do not think that it is an extreme position at all to say that this is dreadful legislation. It is abusive legislation, which is misconceived out of the traditional National Party—and I do not say this lightly, but I think it is true—pathological hatred of beneficiaries in this country. National has a pathological hatred of the poorest and most vulnerable families in this country. I am appalled that a Minister who herself was once a beneficiary, as I was, is responsible for the introduction of this legislation. It is a direct attack on her own community that seems deliberately designed to build on the failures of past National-led Governments in the area of so-called welfare reform.

I lived through the first tranche of this, in the early and mid-1990s. I was a beneficiary at that time and I worked with beneficiary families at that time. The “mother of all Budgets” cut welfare spending and cut the domestic purposes benefit by some 40 percent, leaving those families, hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families, at the very bottom of the breadline and barely able to feed themselves at all and pay their rent and power bills. They were purposely put in that position by the National Government, and it is intending to do that again. We can see how that is happening in this legislation.

But I want to talk about the evidence—about whether there is any—for the intention of this legislation. Let us start with the regulatory impact statement, which states: “There is no research currently available which accurately quantifies the size of the behavioural response from these changes in policy.” There is no evidence at all of any behavioural change. It goes on to say: “This prevents estimates, with the degree of accuracy required, from being made of the number of people who will move from benefit to work over a year, as a result of the proposed changes.” There is no evidence to show that the policy will make any changes in people’s behaviour, and therefore there is no estimate about how many people will be moved from benefits to work. This statement confirms what the Minister said in answer to a question I asked him last week, that the Government does not know who the target is. The Government does not know who it is talking about when it says it wants to move people from benefits to work.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this

When welfare was created, the goal was to provide temporary support for people who were able-bodied but were without an income. It focused on returning them to the workforce promptly and as soon as possible. Today the concept of the right to live off a benefit often outweighs the obligation to get a job. This Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, in my view, restores some of that balance.

As a result of what has been happening in this country, and despite favourable economic circumstances, the number of working-age beneficiaries dependent on the State today is around 300,000. One child in three now lives in a benefit-dependent household, and research identifies that such parents and children fare badly in education, health, and crime statistics. By seriously weakening work incentives, by softening fraud recovery, and by increasing benefit payments, the requirement to move from welfare to work has been dangerously undermined over recent years, in my view at least. This bill changes some of these incentives. It is for this National Government a major piece of legislation, putting in place National’s manifesto commitment to reform the welfare system. The main changes—which I support—are those that require people who are receiving some benefits to seek and accept offers of work, and that require that financial support should reflect the circumstances and need of the individual.

Certain principles and, I think, basic truths flow from the situation that New Zealand now faces. New Zealand cannot, I suggest, succeed as a nation when a quarter to a third of all adults are being supported by the State. Nor can we get ahead when high taxes and increasing compliance costs are stifling jobs and growth. True compassion demands that welfare provides a hand-up to work, independence, and a better future. State assistance should aim to be of a temporary nature. Public policy priorities should protect the interests of children by recognising that, in general, children raised on welfare fail to do as well in all areas of life than those raised by parents in work.

If New Zealand is to succeed, then we need to put personal responsibility, self-reliance, and work above welfare dependency. We need to reduce the barriers to economic growth, and to restore full employment. We need to eliminate long-term dependency of working-age beneficiaries who can work, and we need to dramatically reduce the number of working-age New Zealanders on welfare—in particular, the unemployment benefit, the domestic purposes benefit, and the sickness benefit. We as a nation simply cannot afford to waste the human potential of 300,000 working-age people on benefits. We simply cannot afford that particular level of waste.

In summary, the welfare system was intended by the original designers, many of them from the Labour Party, as temporary assistance to alleviate poverty. It was not intended to make people dependent on the State, reward irresponsibility or dysfunctional behaviour, or contribute to the breakdown of the two-parent family. I support the bill as a move in the right direction.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. In looking at the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, I have to look back at the history of the struggle for tino rangatiratanga, a long and hard road whose early beginnings were paved by warriors who fought and died to hold their lands, by statesmen who sought a peaceful path but got trampled underfoot by colonial invaders, by small communities retreating into themselves in a vain attempt to stave off the devastation of European diseases, and by the many new Māori religious and Government systems set up to try to deliver the shattered dreams of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for a society where the white man governed those for whom he was responsible, Māori managed their own affairs, and both societies worked together for the betterment of all.

I list historical figures from throughout that time, such as Eru Patuone and Tāmati Waka Nene, who signed both He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and who tried to hold together a shaky peace that settlers had no intention of keeping; Hone Heke, who opposed British taxation in an area he considered his own, and went to war against the Crown to protect those rights; people from small communities like Whakapara, where one of the iwi actually had to live in the cemetery to bury the dead, to save his people from the raging deaths caused by the common cold and the dreaded influenza; Anikaaro for creating a religious umbrella to try to protect her people; the rangatira who founded the Kotahitanga movement to give their people an alternative Government based on kaupapa Māori; and Hone Heke Ngāpua, Tai Tokerau’s greatest ever member of Parliament, whose vision, and courage, and maturity belied his youth, and whose memory has been, thankfully, captured in a wonderful book by historian Paul Moon.

In looking at this bill, I also add to that list more contemporary figures such as Sir James Hēnare, the last true paramount chief of Ngāpuhi, who reminded us that we know that we have tino rangatiratanga when we have the power of life and death over our people. We might never exercise it, he was quick to point out, but it most assuredly rested in our hands—a sobering thought indeed. I think of Whina Cooper, who realised that genuine power rested in the hands of Māori women, and formed the Māori Women’s Welfare League to give voice to that power, and who energised the whole of Māoridom by leading the great Māori Land March to Wellington. That protest had a simple slogan: “Not one acre more.”—a slogan that has been ignored by every Government since. I think of Dame Mira Szaszy, who said in the year of the land march: “The loss of land has haunted the Maori since the Treaty of Waitangi. Some action is necessary to lay this ghost to rest for ever. Only then, it seems, will Maori find themselves and become once again a self-determined, self-respecting people. The march must go on, if for no other reason than the expression of an awakening spirit.” I think of the Hon Matiu Rata, who gave birth to the Waitangi Tribunal, and established a pathway to redemption that successive Governments have eagerly travelled, all the while reminding Māori to be realistic in their expectations, which is the Government’s way of saying: “We’ll say sorry, but you must be joking if you think we’re gonna give it back!”. And, dare I say it, I also include old “Dirty Dogs” himself, the Hon Tau Henare, who in his short time as Minister of Māori Affairs flouted the rules at every opportunity, snaffled money for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori where none existed, signed off on our wharekura at Te Rangiāniwaniwa when all the bureaucrats were saying no, and proved that belief in boldness was a genuine prerequisite to the exercise of good ministership.

So when I come to this benefits reform bill, I am reminded of a history that teaches me to speak truthfully of the issues, to speak boldly of the future, but to be guided by the words of Matiu Rata, who said: “If you think on your journey through leadership for our people that your road will be hard, you can rest assured that it is 10 times harder for the rest of our people out there.”

That is why the Māori Party opposes this legislation—because Māori have never sought the debilitation that comes with crippling dependency, and nor do we seek poverty, but neither are we the guinea pigs to be mucked around with by a bureaucracy that victimises those who are powerless, and who are suffering because of the crash of a system of bloated financial greed fed by past Governments and rescued by current ones.

I know heaps of folks who have gone hungry looking for work rather go on the dole, because they know what a demeaning experience it can be. They know the shame that comes from not being able to provide for their kids. They are already feeling worthless, and then a Minister comes out with a line like “The dream is over.” I know heaps of people on the benefit, and for them it is no dream. There is no dream in having to push your baby downtown in a rainstorm, because you cannot afford a bus. There is no dream in living on the edge, when money is tight and you are worried sick about the kids needing to go to the doctor, the power being cut off, the car breaking down, or needing money for school trips. Having no job ain’t a dream, either. It is a brutal reality. There is no dream in being so addicted to tobacco that people sacrifice food to buy smokes, especially when we know that Governments, current and past, know it is a killer, but will let people die so that they can take $1 billion every year in taxes. A dream? Not bloody likely. It has been a nightmare.

We hear a lot of talk about this bill creating a shift away from dependency and into employment. But the truth is that the economic downturn has actually resulted in a greater need for social security. Honestly, forcing 43,000 domestic purposes beneficiaries to go and get a job when their child turns 6 sounds a bit bloody ridiculous when we already know there are not even 4,300 jobs out there. And that is just the domestic purposes beneficiaries. What about the 26 percent of rangatahi Māori and 27 percent of Pasifika youth registered as unemployed? With that level of unemployment, the question is obvious: what is the point in waving the big stick when there simply are not any jobs out there? Why penalise, and even criminalise, beneficiaries when, clearly, a more positive and inclusive approach is required?

That brings me to Whānau Ora, because that is what Whānau Ora is all about. It is a way to help Māori lift themselves out of despair, to help Māori lift themselves back to square one, to help Māori realise that they are the masters of their own destiny, by reshuffling the resources to ensure the help gets to where it is most needed, rather than going round and round in aimless policy circles in Wellington, redesigning idiotic schemes that change according to the politics of the day and generally have no impact whatsoever on those they are intended to help. Whānau Ora was designed by Māori to help Māori. And it is not even about money. Hell, given the confidence and support of the Government, it would very quickly lead to less money, because Whānau Ora is about helping whānau to see that they are the answer to their own future, that they are the focus for their children, and that Whānau Ora is indeed all that Future Focus can never be. Whānau Ora is not just about amalgamating contracts, nor is it just another social welfare programme like the many failed ventures of the past. Whānau Ora is a bold attempt to rewrite the book; to take the $1 billion currently being wasted on social recovery for Māori, and make that money work for the whole of society by putting it in the hands of providers who are directly connected to the communities they serve, so that they can work with whānau to change their circumstances and take responsibility for their future. Yes, we support the calls to move people off the dole, for a move away from dependency and towards a world where work is an option for all. But the better option is Whānau Ora, not sliding back down that well-travelled road of targeting the victims.

We are passionately opposed to any move that will penalise families living in poverty. We will oppose any legislation that will hurt children who have no way of defending themselves. And we will work with anyone who wants to address those issues in a positive manner, rather than through bills that are already sending signals that those in need are a burden on society, rather than a reality in a world still struggling to cope with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Māori Party accepts the position that Minister Turia is in, as we accept also the view that Whānau Ora is the only positive option available to address the many social concerns facing Māori at the moment. We are disappointed that at a time when a bold and visionary approach is needed to deal with the desperate social plight of many in our society, when we have the chance to take up Whānau Ora as a mark of that boldness and that vision, the Government has simply chosen the “blame the victim” option. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill.

HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I stand unambiguously and unequivocally alongside the Minister of Social Development and Employment in supporting the introduction of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Emotive language has been used about punishment and penalty, but this bill is far removed from that. It is focused instead on how we can get fairness into our society.

If the Opposition thinks it is fair to condemn benefit-dependent households to a lifetime of benefits, then all I can say is I am glad we are in Government. We have far higher aspirations and ambitions for the people of New Zealand. We want fairness for benefit-dependent households; we want fairness for the children in those households. The Opposition thinks the best life that the children of New Zealand can have is one of lifelong dependency on society. I will never support that. The children of New Zealand require hope; they require the understanding that it is not normal not to see people go to work, and that it is not normal to grow up in a household of multi-generational dependence on the State. It saps the spirit of those children, it saps the spirit of those adults, it saps the spirit of the grandparents, and it saps the community that they are a part of. This Government is not prepared to sit back and let that happen.

And this Government is equally committed to fairness to the workers; to the workers who every day go out and do the “measly” kind of job that that member over there dismisses; to the workers who are prepared to pay their taxes, who want to be fair to people who are benefit-dependent, who want to be able to help, but who also want to ensure that there is fairness in our society. And we want fairness in the future. We have a burgeoning population. We need to have growth in our economy. We need to have people with an aptitude and an attitude oriented towards work. This bill is based on that.

The Opposition members are going on and on about work while dismissing as measly the jobs that are available.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity—[ Interruption] This is not about you, Hekia. This is not about you, at all.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

It is a terrible thing when a political party seeks to corral and maintain for itself a sector within society, and refuses to let any other political party speak on that sector’s behalf. That is what the Labour Party has done with the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Labour members have decided that anyone who is unemployed or is receiving any benefit from the Government is theirs to speak for. The previous speaker, Dr Rajen Prasad, accused our Minister for Social Development and Employment of going feral, which is absolutely ridiculous. He then accused her of bashing up on beneficiaries and corralling them. It is absolute rubbish. Nothing within the bill has anything whatsoever about being punitive.

It reminds me very, very strongly of what took me from being an ardent supporter of the Labour Party to becoming a paid-up member of the National Party. In 1987 the Labour Government’s Minister of Labour cut all those people off the Project Employment Programme scheme because it was too expensive to administrate. Many of the Labour members who were in Cabinet in those days occupy the front benches opposite today. They were there, and they still have that dirt on their hands. They said that employment was just too good for those people. They paid them a benefit and got them to stay home. Those members did not want to see those people, but they wanted their votes because they were theirs. Those people carried Labour’s brand, but it did not actually give a stuff about them. That is what those members are saying today. They are saying exactly that.

I remember my days as a sole-charge policeman in Pātea after the closure of the Pātea freezing works. The member who has just resumed his seat was talking about the young children involved and saying that this policy has nothing to do with them. It was those young people, under the previous Labour administration, who were relegated. They saw their parents in bed in the morning, waking up, having a cup of coffee, and going back to bed. Because those parents did not have to tip out of bed in the morning and go to work, those young children spent the next 10 years of their lives watching their parents do that. What did they aspire to? They aspired to get on to a benefit as quickly as they damn well could.

For the Labour members sitting over there, barrelling on, the point is that it is fundamental to Labour Party policy to keep a large sector of the community poor and pissed off so that they never have to look at themselves for aspiration or growth within their communities. Other members ask where the jobs are. They forget that welfare policy in this country is about aspiration; it is not about relegation. Under the previous Government it was about relegation, so that if a person was on a benefit, that person should never, ever be allowed to aspire to be anything other than low paid or on a benefit. Well, National in Government has greater aspirations for those people, who are the most vulnerable within our communities, and are, as the previous speaker said, the least well educated and have the least prospects for the future. Let us give them something to aim for, and let us encourage them.

The Future Focus policy is a mixture of incentives, and most of them are about encouragement. It is saying that if someone is on a benefit for 12 months, he or she must reapply. If there are jobs people will be encouraged to make an application, and we will take them there.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I just want to say that it is a sad day for this country when the Government chooses to bash beneficiaries while they are down as a way of diverting attention from the fact that it has not done its job in creating jobs for New Zealanders and creating opportunities for upskilling and training. That is exactly what that Government has failed to do so far. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is not the only person in this House who has been on a benefit. I want to say, as a person who is a sole parent, as a person has been on the domestic purposes benefit, that it is not easy—

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) Link to this

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 7,500 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 6,000 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 3,500 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 PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee , that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 July 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c).