Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5530. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a sad task really to stand up and expose this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and expose this Government because behind the figures and the facts we speak about are real human beings. So the National Government again is continuing with its war on the poor and its war on those who actually rely on social security. We have heard impassioned statements from this side of the House and there is nobody from that side of the House who has taken a full call to actually defend—apart from the Minister for Social Development—the provisions of this bill because they cannot because they do not believe in it or because they know that when they speak they will expose the very criticism that Jacinda Ardern directed towards that side. Melissa Lee was a case in point—a case in point. Tim Macindoe has just done that again. It is all about this fraud and the attitude to those on benefits by those members—I will include Mike Sabin in that as well— 
Tim Macindoe 
: We care about them. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I do not think the member does care about them because of the language the member uses to describe them. The Government really has made it a virtue to appear tough and to make life as difficult as possible for those who rely on social security through that period in their lives when there is nothing else for them to rely on and it is their entire means for them to fend for themselves and their family. 
The National Government has waged this war on the poor and on those on social security right from its inception in 2008. This Government has convinced itself and satisfied itself consistent with its particular ideology that beneficiaries should be presumed guilty until they are found to be innocent. That is what they talk about. That is what Mr Sabin talks about. I have heard Mr Sabin on many occasions. The only person from that side that I might exempt from this is Alfred Ngaro because Alfred Ngaro has actually worked with this group. He actually has seen what battered women do: safeguarding their children on the benefit and doing the best they can to keep the house warm to keep the house clean to look after those children and to protect themselves. That man has seen that and I do not expect him to have the punitive approach to beneficiaries that all of the others who have spoken have taken so far. 
But the Government’s entire attack on those on social security is anchored on the one concept and this is the concept of welfare dependency. What the term “welfare dependency” does is it actually pathologises the problem to the individual. It is actually saying “You are dependent it’s your fault and we are going to have to fix you.” when everything we know is that it is about an interdependent world in which we live. Members opposite might not remember but when people in Mosgiel lost their work the Government did nothing. Their factories closed down. They did not become bludgers overnight. But in fact according to the definitions that the Government members take that was dependency and therefore they pathologise their problem. 
What they have done is they have gathered a whole bunch of information about those on the unemployment benefits and on the domestic purposes benefits and built a case around the length of time they are on those benefits and therefore that is dependency. It has taken one more cynical step further in the recent research reported last week that the lifetime cost of beneficiaries is something like $67 billion. It is almost as if we are asking the mother whose child is born today whether she has got the $150000 it will cost her to take that child through to the age of 15 or 16. Do we ask that question? No. But here the case is made for welfare dependency based on that kind of intellectual dishonesty. And we have a lot of intellectual dishonesty about many of these figures from that side of the House. They have actually convinced themselves that those who are unemployed prefer to stay unemployed and make little attempt to get a job. The Government actually feeds off that prejudice. 
Jacinda and the others on this side of the House were absolutely right when they said what the messages are out there about welfare reform. It is the message that these crooks are going around using our taxpayers’ money; that we pay the money they are stealing from us they are committing fraud we have got to get them; that they are all on drugs and they are all cheats; and that we are going to have to do all these nasty things to them. That is the message out there and the Minister is quite two-faced about it. In the House there is that language the language of “We are backing”—I think she uses that a lot—“these people.” Out there it is that we will create a system that actually will reduce the bill. In a sense that is intellectual dishonesty as well. What we have never heard from this Minister is a philosophically well-argued position on how to take this country to another place where people will have jobs where those who are needy will be looked after and we will all move together—but no that is not there. It divides and rules. 
In the end where are the programmes that this Government has put together? The message in this bill is not that subtle. It really is about that those on social security behave contrary to “important social norms” around health education work and social welfare. My own daughter who is looking after two kids today will not qualify because she does not use 15 hours of early childhood education for her 3-year-old. She is a mum and dad is at work but she will not qualify. But a solo mother has got to ensure that that 3-year-old is in early childhood education. Here are these people who do not fill “important social norms”. This is prejudice of the worst kind. This is a punitive approach. The Minister does not like the term but all of her welfare provisions are punitive. It blames somebody it punishes somebody; it is not developmental. If the Minister took a developmental approach this side of the House would support her because we know what that is like. We know how difficult that is and we know what needs to be done to put all of that together. But we do not get that from this Government. It is not actually interested in that. 
It has become this Minister’s badge of honour to be unnecessarily aggressive and unnecessarily punitive. It is almost as if there is something in that. Well there is not because once they have gone from this place they are not remembered for those characteristics. What people are remembered for when they leave here particularly those who have been in Government is the good they did where they used the best science and the best information to bring about the best results particularly for our most vulnerable but certainly for our families who really are the driving force of our society. 
Here we know that this Minister is the “Minister of Distraction”. Whenever John Key is in trouble whether it is the water issue or whether it is the John Banks issue what you do is reannounce the policies again. We know that it is a distraction. There is no ethics in that. There is no morality in that. There is— 
Mike Sabin 
: This Minister has done more in one bill than that party did in 9 years of Government. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Mr Sabin talks about 9 years. In 9 years we reduced child poverty. In this Government’s life just about 260000 children are in poverty. And where are the jobs? When will that member create them? That member comes from a very poor part of New Zealand. I expect that member to understand and advocate for those families. He does not. He actually does not. He is part of the problem as indeed that member’s colleagues are part of the problem. These are the people whom I have worked with all my life. These are the people I know well. And these are the people Alfred Ngaro knows well. And here we are screwing them down to the lowest common denominator. We call them names—that is the subtext of this bill Mr Sabin. 
Mike Sabin 
: Get off that ideological hobby horse that you keep riding. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Perhaps the member had better read up and we will debate every bit of this in the select committee. But there is nothing that is redeeming in this bill at all. This notion of an investment approach is the biggest—I better not use a certain term because it is unparliamentary—load of rubbish I have heard. This is not an investment approach. We know what an investment approach is and those business-oriented politicians on that side of the House have taken something out of the business world and are applying that to human relations believing that the country will understand. There is no investment in this. This is punitive. This is negative. This is divisive. 
But the other side is also possible because every family on social security is known to the organisation. Our organisation without any legislative change can work very very well with them to put them on the right path to development which is what the Clark Government did. These unemployed people were triaged. We had the lowest unemployment rate in the world. I know about those because the same staff in Work and Income worked day in and day out alongside those people and got them into jobs while the country was creating jobs as well. So here we are: do not create jobs increase child poverty time and at the same time punish our people. That side ought to be ashamed of itself and I look forward to a robust debate throughout the select committee process. Thank you.