Prasad Rajen: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13258. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am really glad that the member who just resumed his seat Chester Borrows did not stay a member of the Labour Party. He deserves to be in the National Party. I will take up two of his points. The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit under the previous Labour Government went down for the first time since the domestic purposes benefit was introduced. That member said that we did nothing; well that is one fact for him. The second point the member might like to recall is that the previous Government worked hard to get the unemployment rate down and it was the lowest in the OECD. So there is plenty that the previous Government did to address the needs of every citizen in New Zealand society. 
No matter how much this Government dresses up the provisions of this social security legislation as representing its focus on fairness and its unrelenting focus on work it is another example of this Government’s punitive approach to the most vulnerable in our society. That is what it is. There are many other examples in the legislation that has come before this House brought by that Government—this is another example. This legislation could have provided a great opportunity for the Minister for Social Development and Employment to focus on fairness and to focus on work if she had really wanted to. But she did not do that. She was not up to it and therefore the sadness about this third reading debate is that it is a lost opportunity. The Government was never interested in social security but it now comes to the House and says that is on its agenda. How come then that nobody believes the Government? Nobody believes it. 
This Government has really internalised and been driven by if we think about it the views of those who believe that beneficiaries are unfairly receiving State assistance. That is the rhetoric and those are the beliefs that those members opposite in this Government have internalised. This is the reason for this punitive approach to welfare reform. The Government also believes that the lives of those who receive assistance should not be easy. We should make it difficult for them. They should be expected to continually prove that they are deserving of the assistance the State provides. It goes back to the Charity Organisation Society days of the deserving and the undeserving poor. The only step after that is to give them bread and circuses. Those who argue for this legislation rarely demonstrate any in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of many beneficiaries and indeed Mr Garrett was a case in point. He has demonstrated that a number of times in this House. There is no reason to really begin to use the kinds of names that that member used for this group of people. I think he ended his speech by saying that it was like they were diseased it was like a disease. 
David Garrett 
: No I didn’t. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member did say that. The belief was that this was like a disease— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence to that. At no time did I say that beneficiaries were diseased; I said that welfarism was a disease. That is a very different thing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is a point of debate; it is not a point of order. The member has mechanisms for that. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I think that the member’s language demonstrates his contempt for this group of people. The member’s thoughts were that this group should be like some others he quoted from the Pacific Islands and make their own clothes. Well that is the bread and circuses argument. We are not taking New Zealand back to that kind of experience. 
At every stage of this legislation this side of the House has tried to bring some balance to the issues that the Government faces in what it proposes in this legislation. But at no point has the Government started to listen to what was said in the Social Services Committee. Hardly anybody spoke in support of the changes affecting the unemployed and those on the domestic purposes benefit. These submissions were not from just anybody. Annette King went through the submissions in some detail. They were from respectable organisations that administered to our most vulnerable. It was their considered opinion that this legislation does not address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. These organisations said that the changes will make the situation much worse. The Hon Annette King listed the thoughts they had such as that this legislation was discriminatory and that it would increase poverty. That is what we were told. We were told it would affect children and it would increase the chances of violence within families. We fight against that in other programmes but here we are passing another set of rules that will make it worse. So in this legislation the Government has not considered the perverse effects of these provisions on the important role of sole parents bringing up children. The Government was not listening; it knew best. 
The Government’s approach to fairness is interesting. Fairness does not mean as it does for this side of the House providing an adequate income for those who are bringing up children on their own so that they may be provided with the best opportunity to provide the best environment. That would be fair if we really focused on that. Fairness means not subjecting mothers—they are mainly mothers—to the frustrations of access to childcare; it means opening up opportunities for them to undertake training and education so that they may prepare themselves for re-entering the workforce when their children require less of their time and when they can gain employment that provides them with an adequate income. Fairness on this side of the House means balancing the negative views of beneficiaries that some hold in society which members opposite reflect with a plan to give every New Zealander the opportunity to make a valued contribution to our society. It is another example of where the Government does not have a comprehensive plan; it goes along one dimension hoping that will work. This is another example of that lack of plan and lack of principle and it is really wolf-whistle politics that we see. 






 In the third reading debate one National member asked what was wrong about expecting sole parents when their children were 6 years old to take on some work. I say to that member that there is nothing wrong with that expectation provided that we have taken into account all that a solo parent has to do to provide good care for his or her children. Solo parents have to do single-handedly what many of us struggle with as part of a two-parent family with more financial resources. We must also factor in those who are taking courses to prepare themselves to enter the job market when their children require less of their time and those who provide a significant amount of the volunteer work that keeps our schools our communities our recreational programmes and vulnerable people supported. These provisions do not take into account the real experiences of those people. The legislation gives enormous powers to case managers to make decisions. The only fall-back criteria will be whether sole parents have work. The punitive regime will then kick in. 
If the Government adopted our definition of suitable work I would take its intentions seriously and accept that it is sincere. There are sole parents on benefits bringing up children whose youngest child has just gone to school. They could well be preparing themselves for work through night school etc. and they could also be doing the volunteer work that our communities depend on in our schools in our old people’s homes in our recreational programmes and in our churches. That is real work. It is not as Mr Garrett says just sitting down and watching television in the afternoon. Our Supplementary Order Paper recommended that that be counted as reasonable work. The only difference is that if it were paid it would be work but it is not paid. It is valuable work but there was not even a moment’s consideration on the part of the Government or the Minister to take that into account. 
The case has been made. We are sending people to find work when there is no work when it is quite difficult. I have worked with many of these people and this is a sad moment. This was an opportunity to do something really useful but the Government has come up with another set of punitive measures that will be used to punish those who provide valuable care for our children and our communities. Thank you.