Fairbrother Russell: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14802] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as chair of the Social Services Committee to follow the deputy chair Judith Collins and her latest version the 2008 version of beneficiary bashing. That speaker’s coded speech was “We’re out to get beneficiaries; we’re going to take the benefit system back to 1992 when benefits were slashed.” They were slashed to save Government spending and slashed so that the then Government’s rich mates could avoid paying more tax. 
That was the coded message from the last speaker. She was trying to dance on the head of a pin in order to avoid saying “We want to hit beneficiaries whenever we can.” This is a great example. If this bill is misused it will be another attack on beneficiaries. Well this bill will not be misused because it will be administered by Government departments led by Ministers who have hearts committed to social justice. 
The people of New Zealand need to realise that if they have a change of Government in some future time they will give away social justice for the extraction of a few dollars of tax benefit. That is what that last speaker was warbling on about in her tremulous voice as she avoided the issue at hand. 
Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was trying to say “lightweight” nicely. This bill is really about one piece of legislation called the Social Security Act 1964 and that Act feeds through this bill into three other pieces of legislation: the Corrections Act 2004 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. Each of those three Acts relates to the Social Security Act 1964 in that they all give away a degree of privacy that is owned by the beneficiary. The Social Security Act enables data matching to take place with the greater resources of knowledge of the Ministry of Social Development about the status of an individual to make sure that when an individual’s status changes either by going into prison or by leaving the country and going overseas—which is where the Customs and Excise Act comes into it—there is no continued payment of a benefit when the eligibility to receive the benefit stops. 
The Social Security Act is not really a beneficent Act to try to stop people from getting into debt nor is it a punitive Act trying to penalise beneficiaries; it is a morally neutral Act that is a movement towards greater efficiency. I note that when my very good friend the last speaker Judith Collins spoke at the first reading of this bill she adopted an oxymoron as an argument which she did not dare repeat tonight. But on that occasion which she touched on tonight she said that this bill had been 8 long years coming and that it had involved many hundreds of millions of dollars of computer systems to get here. Of course she admits that we could not have data matching until this Government brought up to date the computerised infrastructure of Government departments so that they could work well. 
This Government in 1999 inherited a hotchpotch of computer systems with no investment in infrastructure and we could not match data. It has taken 8 years for this Government to be in a position where it can even operate efficiently and the people of New Zealand will ignore that to their ultimate regret. 
It is a simple fact that a boat cannot be turned around in a few seconds. To turn the ship of State around to a state of efficiency has taken 8 short years. We as a Labour Government can now start delivering the benefits of social policy and social conscience—the social contract we have with the voters of New Zealand. 
This legislation is a prime example of that. People talk about it being a short piece of legislation. I tell Mr Finlayson not to confuse size with quality. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I wanted to wake up the member; that was all. This legislation tidies up the whole benefit system. I do not really place much emphasis on the argument that it benefits beneficiaries and stops them getting into debt. It also benefits the State because it stops overpayment of benefits. The legislation is simply neutral legislation that ties in the status of beneficiaries with the needs of the State to make sure that when benefits are paid they go to those who qualify and when people stop qualifying the benefits stop. 
However the select committee was concerned about the erosion of privacy in the three pieces of legislation—the Corrections Act administered by the prison service; the Customs and Excise Act administered by the Customs Service; and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act administered by the Accident Compensation Corporation—and that the concession of privacy contained by the amendment of this bill was covered by data matching and the 5-day notification period which were touched upon by the Minister in his second reading speech. So that allows an opportunity for a beneficiary to be aware of what is going on and to make any necessary corrections should for some reason the data matching be based on some wrong premise. 
But the Social Services Committee uttered in its report a word of warning—and I think that it is worth repeating for the record—that when individuals are sentenced to imprisonment people often think that that is a matter of glee for everybody but the passing of a sentence of imprisonment is one of the most sombre acts a judge has to undertake in a court. Many fine judges have said that the passing of a sentence is often and usually much more onerous than any trial process particularly if imprisonment is involved. The passing of a sentence of imprisonment is traumatic for all in the court and no more so than for prisoners and their families. 
The select committee report recommends that Work and Income representatives be in court whenever possible so that they can speak to families concerned and explain the process that happens from the time of the passing of a sentence. It is at that time when families are at their most vulnerable when their minds and emotions are running with a confusion of feelings and when there are conflicting emotions—concern often for the victims of crime and for themselves and despair for their loved one and their supportive one. That is the time when someone from Work and Income can sit down and with a cool head say “Well your benefit change occurs now and let’s talk about how we can help you through the transition period.” 
The recommendation of the committee was that Work and Income become proactive as proactive as the computer system will be to make sure that at these times of transition when people go to prison or leave to go overseas which is a different situation entirely the benefit stops appropriately and that the indebtedness that may occur does not occur. 
The concern of the committee was really to minimise hardship to beneficiaries. The majority on the committee did not set out to engage in any form of benefit-bashing enterprise. We accept that the payment of benefits is an act by the State. It is not based on charity but is the right of individuals to support from the State. There is a degree of trust involved. Most individuals who receive benefits—in fact the vast majority—adhere to that trust very very well. There are a very very small few who bring the majority into discredit. That very small number of individuals who approach their receipt of a benefit with a degree of distrust is exaggerated by Opposition members who use those individuals as a punching bag to demonstrate that beneficiaries should be penalised by cuts and more stringent measures. 
For anybody to say that this legislation is an attack upon beneficiaries as was referred to by Dr Pita Sharples—a man whom I respect considerably—in his first reading speech is to misunderstand the purpose of this bill we are addressing today in its second reading. It is a morally neutral bill. It is now possible because after 8 years of trying to bring the infrastructure of this country to a state where we can be proactive and start to achieve real policy this bill reflects the ability of the various Government departments to work cooperatively for the benefit of those who receive benefits and the taxpayers as well. 
This is very tidy legislation. It does have a human element to it but essentially it is technical legislation that reflects the very efficient computer systems that are now established in our Government departments. There is a nice data-matching process that can proceed by the slight release of confidentiality that beneficiaries have under the three Acts I have already referred to. 
I commend this legislation to the House. I thank the Social Services Committee for its attention to the detail involved in this legislation and particularly for the humane approach that all members on the committee took to this issue and for their very full consideration of the privacy issues that are involved. One should never underestimate their importance.