Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8940. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take what no doubt will be my final call in the Committee stage of this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill on the title and commencement clauses. I thank Jacinda Ardern for that last series of comments because she appears to get to some of the more important questions about this bill that have not been answered. Certainly the title does not reflect any of the kind of thinking that Jacinda Ardern was talking about. 
We know so much in today’s world about children and families. We know so much today about the historical ways in which we have addressed their needs and which ones have failed and which ones have been successful. When we go back even to residual forms of provision for the vulnerable we know how unsuccessful they have been. We also know today how there are so many opportunities to take a developmental approach to this sector yet this bill has not taken that opportunity and that bothers us. 
We also live in a time—and even the Minister talks about this ad nauseam—when we are ensuring that our social policy and our legislation are evidence-based. Well this bill is not. It is very very clear from the submitters from the research that is around—unless you are very very selective about that research—that the evidence that is available has not been utilised. Even those of our major institutions in New Zealand that submitted to us would agree that the bill does not reflect current knowledge and it is not evidence-based. Perhaps a more appropriate title might be the “Social Security (Not Based on Evidence) Amendment Bill”. 
If we look at what the Human Rights Commission told us it said that there were less intrusive ways to achieve the goals of social obligation than through the kinds of sanctions that this bill has come up with. There are less intrusive ways. Why have we not taken those less intrusive ways? Somehow the Government wants to appear tough. It wants to appear to knock those who in their own way seem to be abusing the system and this will fix it. In that the Government and the Minister are pandering to that element of a support base that actually sees this as a troubled and troubling part of our community. But these are still our mums and dads. These are the people who are bringing up our children. They deserve the best. That is why this system has been designed. 
Caritas noted—and it is a highly respected organisation—the potentially severe impact of financial sanctions and submitted that there needed to be checks and balances. Here the kind of financial sanction—a 50 percent financial sanction—is a severe sanction on the most vulnerable. So the title could have “50 percent sanctions” in there somewhere to say that this will punish the children and revisit the sins of the parents on to the most vulnerable. I cannot see how the Minister could defend that other than simply as wanting to be punitive towards this particular vulnerable section of our community. So “punitive” and “punishment” ought to be in the title as well because that is what the bill reflects. 
The Methodist Church raised concerns that the sanctions will not be used with great discretion. It was concerned about that. Sanctions of this type in our Work and Income and social security legislation in practice take on a life of their own despite the assurances given to us by officials. That is a concern that we would want to raise again. Perhaps the title to be honest might have reflected that as well. 
The Children’s Commissioner actually gave advice to the Social Services Committee that it was much more important to use non-monetary sanctions. It said there was some good evidence around the use of financial incentives and including that in the bill somewhere around attending parenting courses and things like that. There is lots to be said about how this bill does not use either the current signs available to us today or the current knowledge available to us today. So there is something else that is driving this particular bill. I think members opposite when they took calls on Part 2 and Part 1 of the bill actually did give the lie to that type of perspective which is that this is about concern about the amount of money that is spent in this field and about those people taking advantage of the system. 
The next series of comments is really about bringing up children. This bill says nothing about how we ought to be bringing up children today. Again that could be because the underlying assumption in this bill is that bringing up children is not work. That is the underlying premise the underlying value of this particular bill. And why is it not work? Any mum or dad bringing up children particularly if you are on your own but for any mum and dad it is important work and yet we give that no value. If you happen to be not reliant on the State for an income then yes you have that choice. But why is it that our most vulnerable are not enabled to spend time with their children in those critical years from 0 to 5? In this bill there is no value placed on parenting. I think that was a point that the Children’s Commissioner was making. If parenting is what we ought to be focused on then let us build some incentives around parenting. We would have supported something like that but it is not here. We seem to separate out this need to punish and not use the knowledge available to us. I am concerned that that is a worry and the title could reflect that. 
The next point I want to make is punishment is the theme. No matter how the Minister for Social Development and her colleagues dress this thing up it is about punishment. It is punishing those who get to a particular place in their lives. The Minister says: “I know I am expecting a lot of people.” which gives the impression she understands that. I do not think she does. If she did then the provisions here would have been different. Certainly I think that not enabling a sole parent with a 14-year-old teenager—taking that right out of the system—is something that we will regret down the line. Because bringing up 14-year-olds is still a difficult task particularly if you have got a 15-year-old or 16-year-old as well. But they are now taken right out of the system and others do not have that opportunity. 
Finally I want to say this and it is the last opportunity to do so with officials being here. I want to acknowledge the work of the officials. They worked with us for several months answering all kinds of questions we put to them and dutifully and indeed pleasantly they brought that information to us explained it and even at times when it was difficult they did that. So I want to sincerely thank the officials here and that includes the legal people as well from Parliament here. Thank you very much for that. 
There are lots of reasons why this bill ought not to be supported. I think my colleagues over the months that we have debated these provisions have not convinced this Minister one iota. There ought not to be this distance between those of us in this Chamber with some knowledge and experience in this field bringing that to bear on good policy and practice. But the Government has been blind to that. The Minister has turned her eyes away from that and has brought together a bill that I think in time will be regretted and we will need to fix. I am sure it will be left to a Labour Government to fix it as indeed it has had to do in the past to fix all of the mistakes in the social legislation of a conservative Government. With those words I thank you very much.