Ngaro Alfred: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:13133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to take a call this afternoon on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill in its first reading. The speeches this afternoon on this bill have truly been a good western—a combination of the good the bad and the truly ugly. In saying that I want to make a comment about New Zealand First memberLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor who quoted Winston Churchill. This is what she said: sometimes it is better to be irresponsible and right than be responsible and wrong. I find it very interesting that that member worked in the prison system with prisoners in rehabilitation knowing very clearly that the system was that those who were punished for doing wrong need to be in that right place. If you do the crime you do the time. I find that very interesting and very confusing. That is probably something that confuses the member herself. She probably has not read the bill or the regulatory impact statement either.The previous speakerSu’a William Sio was talking about the whole aspect of this bill and the importance of the bill. The bill brings new tools to prevent detect and catch welfare fraud. It is pleasing to hear that members on the other side as Jacinda Ardern said support the intent of the bill. I think that there is common support for the intent of the bill which is that those who are defrauding the system should be held to account. As one who has really read the regulatory impact statement I say that the consultation has been wide. All Crown entities have been consulted which is the reason why it is going to the Social Services Committee. Then there will be further public consultation to hearthe proposals at the select committee consideration of the bill as well. This becomes very important.The vast majority of people who are on welfare—we want to say this—do declare their true circumstances. There is only a small minority who choose and have the intent to defraud the system. In the regulatory impact statement it is really quite clear that in 2011-12 there were 10735 cases that were investigated resulting in 2139 cases of overpayment being established. That is significant because that is a figure of $18.4 million of debt that was established. What we are trying to say is that those who have caused this offence should be held to account.We are also being careful because there have been some concerns about those who are vulnerable in the system especially in regard to domestic violence. There is a stronger focus on ensuring that we protect them. The law is very clear that for welfare purposes a violent relationship is not treated as a relationship when assessing their entitlement to a benefit. This will be good news to those who work in refuges and to those women who have through no fault of their own been in a relationship where there clearly is domestic violence. It is also important as we do not want to remove financial support that might help a woman who has extracted herself from an abusive relationship. This is an important bill.I want to address some of the issues in this debate around the comparison of welfare fraud with tax fraud. There has been a lot made of this. In fact the concern raised on the other side is that the Government treats welfare fraudsters in a way that is more punitive than it treats tax fraudsters. That is far from the truth. Our key message as a Government is this: the welfare and tax systems operate in different ways and it is misleading to attempt to compare them. The Government has a duty to ensure that our taxpayer money is not being taken illegitimately. To suggest we turn a blind eye is irresponsible. No one is disputing that tax fraud is a bigger issue than welfare fraud and the Government’s priorities reflect this.Over the last four Budgets the Government has invested almost $200 million of new funding into tackling tax fraud but it has put no new money into fighting welfare fraud. The Inland Revenue Department has an enforcement budget of $142 million while the Ministry of Social Development’s enforcement budget is simply $30 million. There is concern that welfare reform costs are $23 million a year while tax fraud is at $1 billion but the response that we want to form—so that there is some clarity here—is that no one is denying that tax fraud is a bigger problem but this comparison is definitely misleading. It intends to compare welfare fraud that we caught and that we could prove beyond reasonable doubt and prosecute with an academic estimate of what tax fraud may exist.It is also important that we declare that the tools that are also here allow there to be joint accountability. We have heard the Greens talking about this and reporting the facts—the one thing that they do agree with. No longer can it be used just for a spouse in a violent relationship to then dob in the other spouse. This time there will be shared accountability and responsibility for those who are found in this situation.I want to wrap up my speech. There was a comment that was made that we on this side are benefit bashing. In fact we have never used those words. You can check all of theHansard. On this side of the House we have never used those words. We have never used those words. In fact what was also of concern is that the Opposition members were appealing to us to look at our experiences of working in communities. I can honestly say that I have had a constituent who has come to my office over inMāngere and sat down with me. Through no fault of their own they were in a circumstance where they were being investigated. We sat down together we worked through the issues and I am pleased to say that we are coming to a resolution in thissituation. What that proves is this: the system that we are seeking to reform is one where those who are in circumstances through no fault of their own can be given a way of mitigating their circumstances. We are doing that. The system allows for that because this is what has been set up.Finally I just want to say that this system of checking out and catching out those who have defrauded the system is part of this Government’s way of looking at welfare. We will always be there to support our people in our community—those who need it—but anyone who can work should be in work or looking for work and employment opportunities. It is a comprehensive reform of the whole of the welfare system. I commend this bill to the House.