Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14877] 
2.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by his response yesterday that Community Employment Group - funded advice to beneficiaries on “safeguarding their income without jeopardising their benefits” can be “helpful” and is he satisfied that programmes funded by the Community Employment Group are an acceptable use of taxpayer funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Mr Speaker as you have said there are two distinct parts to the member’s question so the answer will be a little longer than usual. 
On the second part many projects funded by the Community Employment Group have worked quite well for disadvantaged groups throughout the country. However the Government has concerns about the way that a number of grants have been used which is why there have been investigations into a number of them. I have initiated a review of the Social Entrepreneur Fund which has resulted in its termination and I have initiated a review of the Community Employment Group itself. 
The first part of this question has taken what I said yesterday out of context. What I said was: “It is very important to know that many people who go into part-time work and who are seeking to return to the workforce also do have eligibility for parts of the benefit system and advice of that kind can be helpful.” The member has as usual distorted the facts. 
Katherine Rich 
: Further to the Minister’s response is it not the aim of the Community Employment Group to help people to be independent not to help them hide their income so that they can remain on a benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes it certainly is the aim of the Community Employment Group to ensure that people can go to work. But can I just come back to the case the member raised specifically yesterday as an illustration. I have had the case the member referred to yesterday checked out. As usual the member was wrong. Income received from the craft operation has been reported to Work and Income for the last 3 years and taken into account in calculating benefit entitlement. The member made other allegations yesterday and previously and I have investigated those as well. I have to say that in almost every single case she has chosen to distort those facts in a way that suits her. I invite her to make the allegations about the Maori Women’s Welfare League outside Parliament. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What outcomes have been achieved from the Mahi a Whanau project that the Community Employment Group has funded the Maori Women’s Welfare League to carry out? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There have been a number of positive outcomes. Eight regional Mahi a Whanau networks have been established focusing on Maori who run small businesses around basically Maori arts and crafts. A basic business course has been established in each of the eight Maori Women’s Welfare League regions. Exhibitions were held in galleries in Auckland giving 44 artists exhibition exposure and new works have been commissioned. The league has also been giving hands-on business advice and brokering to many organisations assisting with small business. I think that criticising the Maori Women’s Welfare League in the way that Katherine Rich has done has been harmful. She should do it outside the House so that the league can answer her directly. 
Katherine Rich 
: What is there to misinterpret or distort when his own officials write the following: “The group has recently I don’t know quite when experienced a systems failure signing blank cheques which resulted in fraud.”; is he telling the House that his own investigations have found that his own officials got it wrong; if so what is he going to do about it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member has discovered a number of times in this House Community Employment Group officials have got it wrong. That is why they are being reviewed. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Are the Minister’s officials right or wrong to be concerned about pre-signed cheques for Community Employment Group funding and the potential for fraud? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They sure are and I would endorse their being very concerned about those kinds of behaviours. But can I refer the member to the transcript where the Maori Women’s Welfare League explains exactly what happens to its cheques. I will not read it out; it is a long interview. The league concludes as everybody else who reads this interview will that Ms Rich should try making her accusations outside the House so that it can sue her. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer was “They sure are”. I do not know whether they sure are wrong or sure are right. I wonder whether he could explain which the answer was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he does not have to. I thought he gave an adequate addressing of the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better have a point of order. Three times yesterday and once today his points have not been points of order. What is the point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: The point of order is this. When the Minister having been asked whether they were right or wrong gets up and says “They sure are” you might be able to discern whether they were right or wrong in the Minister’s view but I cannot and neither can anyone else in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that was not what he was asked. 
Rodney Hide 
: He was asked that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a look at the transcript and if I am wrong I will certainly apologise to the member but that is not what I thought. I thought his answer “They sure are” was to his being asked whether he was concerned about people with blank cheques and he said “They sure are”. 
Rodney Hide 
: Let us not run off to the  
Hansard 
 because we have asked a question and we would like it answered. The question is whether the Minister thinks they were right or wrong to be concerned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is another question. The member can ask it. 
Hon Member 
: It is the same question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The same question. If the Minister likes to expand on the answer he can. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What I said was that the group would be very right to be concerned about people pre-signing cheques in a way that was wrong. But the accusations raised by Katherine Rich are ones I would love her to make outside the House so that the league can have a go at her. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister support Community Employment Group grants to organisations like Cook Islands and Samoan golf or the $28000 grant to the Common Knowledge Trust to promote the Pink Kit Method for Birthing Better which according to the organisation’s website answers questions like “Am I big enough to get my baby out?” and can help a woman discover her own “unique shape” and —intriguingly—“create more space” for her baby? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government does not support any grant that is done in an inappropriate way or is used inappropriately. But I want to say to the member opposite that she distorts continually grants that have been made. I want to use one other example. She came into the House the other day and said that $2000 had been used to develop a website. It had not; it had been used for email. It had been properly used she was wrong and I wish she would make these accusations outside the House.