Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The previous speaker started off his speech by saying that he doesn't know where to start. Well he didn't even know where to finish and he didn't even begin to talk about the bill itself. But what I would have to say about that member Darroch Ball who's just sat down and who just made his speech—I want to use an old Kiwi colloquialism that's actually in the Oxford Dictionary and it says this. It's called sucking the kumara. Sucking the kumara" refers to the fact that when someone has failed—and it's a terminology that's used that he's sucked the kumara—he didn't keep his promises. He didn't actually achieve what he intended to do. I would have to say that when New Zealand First stood up in the election campaign of 2017 here are the things that it talked about. In fact if you go to Newshub of October 2017 they talked about the 16 different things—and it relates to the bill that we're talking about now because one of them was about benefits—that are different between New Zealand First and the Greens. One of them was about Māori seats. "Abolish them." is what New Zealand First said. Well that didn't happen. The other one is around Whānau Ora: "Get rid of it." That hasn't happened. We just heard today there's going to be a review. The others were about mining but in particular was actually No. 10 and here's what it said about benefits. Here's what the Greens said. Their manifesto said this: "We want to increase benefit payments by 20 percent and remove all sanctions and obligations for beneficiaries." But here's what New Zealand First said. Wait for it—they said this: "Greater scrutiny of the benefit system" and that's exactly what this bill is about. OK? At the heart of it it's the scrutiny of the benefit system. So let's talk about this and see what this bill is actually all about. It's in the title which says "Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply". Now that surely is something that's part of the New Zealand First manifesto. It wants to scrutinise the benefit payments. In other words these are people who are beneficiaries already who've actually committed an offence. It could be everything from robbery. It could be all sorts. It could be male assaults female—we don't know what it is but they've committed an offence. They've gone into court—I know Greg O'Connor will know this—and they've been held to account but the judge has mitigated the sentence. He's actually said to them "We're going to give you a community sentence." A community sentence is where the offender can go back and can contribute to his community. It means that he has a certain number of hours that he has to comply with. It lessens the ability for them to go into incarceration—to go into jail. That's what the sentence is actually all about. So we're now talking about people who have offended. They've gone to court. They've been charged. They've been convicted. They've been sentenced. Now they're going into a situation where all they have to do is complete—it could be 10 20 30 or could be even 100 hours. That's what they have to do. That's all that's being asked of them. When they don't comply not once not twice or maybe not even three times—now you have to say this on the other side—when do you get to the point where you have to hold people to account? When do you have to say to people "There's been a lesser sentence. It's been mitigated."? And that's what this bill is actually talking about. It's saying this. What we're saying is this is one tool to incentivise compliance. That's what this bill is about. It means that corrections can use this as an ability to be able to incentivise that process. But let's walk and talk the way through what this bill actually is telling us and what is trying to be achieved in being able to implement this bill. Speakers on the other side have said it's being mean-spirited it's cold-hearted and it's not actually caring for those that are in need. Again we're talking about people who don't comply. So here's the process. With the relationship with the corrections officer the probation officer who's working with them or it could even be a social worker—after 30 days they cannot apply a written notice but they will apply one written notice. So say the offender hasn't turned up. They're meant to be doing some gardening or meant to be out there maybe at the local school maybe in a park to help beautify a community and they didn't comply with that. They'll be contacted. They'll be talked to and asked for the reasons why. If there is no valid reason for that then there will be one written warning. Now it's another 14 days afterwards in which they can then also apply a second warning. So let's talk about this. Fourteen days—the ability to be able to go again to comply with the sentence they've been given. It's a community sentence. It may be gardening or it may be weeding. But what it means is the opportunity for that person who's receiving by the way a taxpayer-funded benefit to help support them and their family and their whānau—all they need to do is comply with that. Again it could be gardening or it could be weeding. But if they don't comply for a second time they get a second warning right. A second warning. Then after that another 14 days has to lapse before corrections will then contact them or talk to them and say "Look it's been over two weeks three weeks and there's been non-compliance. You haven't turned up. If you do not there will be some serious consequences." That's what this bill is asking of them. So tell me where's the hardship? Where's the cold-heartedness in this? It's actually ensuring that we are walking through with offenders to make sure that they comply. Here's the other point that this bill is trying to achieve. It's accountability with discretion. This is not cold-hearted. This is not mean-spirited. It's trying to make sure they complete it because the sooner they complete the sentence the sooner they can get on with their lives. Here's the other alternative where this bill is trying to mediate this and give another opportunity and an alternative to going back into court going back into the system and potentially going back into prison. It's saying to them "If you comply and if you do the things that you've been asked to do simply to uphold the sentence that you've been given then you will just continue and finish your sentence." End of story—there's nothing else to be done. Now where's the cold-heartedness in this? I would say that the people outside that are inside of New Zealand would say "Actually that's OK. That's accounted for." Mr Darroch Ball talked about the numbers. In actual fact it's around about 27900 offenders that have a community-based sentence. Out of that when you talk about splitting the percentages it works out at about 1600 who breach their compliance with the sentence that they've been given and those are beneficiaries. So we'd say this: out of the 1600 that are beneficiaries it's not untold to be able to hold them to account. Again there's a process that has discretion to it to allow them to get to a point. All they simply need to do is to comply and finish off the sentence. I would have to say that that's what this bill is trying to do. That's the intent of the bill. There's accountability with discretion and that's inside of that. And for 1600 breaches I believe that actually it's a bill that's worth considering. I am surprised that New Zealand First have sucked the kumara on this. They've gone along and next thing it will be an increase of 20 percent in benefits. They're removing the sanctions and the obligations that have been proved to make a difference. The fact is that those who have been found in breach of benefit fraud—so there are around about 89000 people who were found in breach. That calculates as $34.6 million that was actually taxpayer-funded. I have to tell you this. Taxpayers that are out there who are giving their taxes to the Government to hold people to account in this particular area—look it definitely won't increase crime but what it will do is hold people to account. I will finish by saying this. New Zealand First campaigned on the fact that they would have better scrutiny of the benefit system. That's exactly what this bill is intended to do. I have to say to New Zealand First on the other side that your supporters that are out there in New Zealand—I have to ask the question. You made a promise; you haven't kept it. You've sucked the kumara. I think it's a sad day for New Zealand First who are not supporting this bill. I support this bill to the House."