Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16778. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. Clearly it is this type of bill that demonstrates the difference between the philosophical position of this side of the House and that of that side of the House. Before I get into that it is clear that we on this side of the House are supporting the bill in order to demonstrate that Labour is not in the business of supporting those who defraud our system. So for that reason we are supporting the bill. But in supporting the bill there is every need to demonstrate the basic difference between the two sides and the way this side of the House looks at those who are vulnerable those who are poor and those who are forced into a stage in their lives where they are dependent on welfare and their right to be treated fairly. There is nothing that demonstrates that difference more clearly than the language that has been used by the two sides of the House. We can listen to the language of the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows when he said “rip-offs” for example. The moment that that kind of language is used as a justification for a particular piece of legislation it is clear that it is designed to summon all of the negative beliefs one has about welfare. I want to put on record—Tim Macindoe: What do you call the actions of those who have been convicted of fraud?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I say to Mr Macindoe that there are a lot of people who are very wealthy and who have also been defrauding the State for years. Some have been caught but many have not. I do not see that member standing up and arguing against them. The member does not. The member is very clear—Tim Macindoe: I want you to answer my question. The question was what do you call those people who have been convicted of fraud?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I know that that member came into this Parliament for one sole reason by his own admission—to fix up welfare fraud. That is in Hansard. That is in his speech. That is a pathetic reason to be in Parliament and if that is all that that member has to go by to be in this Parliament and the only contribution that that member wants to make for the vulnerable in New Zealand society then I just hope that that member does get in touch with his own soul and that his relationship with the most vulnerable—Tim Macindoe: I’m in touch with my soul; I’m just asking you a question.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I am not so sure Mr Macindoe that you have done that yet. Coming back to the point I am making—Tim Macindoe: I’m in touch with my soul thank you very much.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: If the member wants to interject I shall take him downtown as well so I suggest he listens a bit—Tim Macindoe: I beg your pardon? You’ll what?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I will—well figuratively speaking of course Mr Macindoe. I have been with you downtown and I would not want to talk about that here but the member knows what I am talking about.So when Government members talk the language of rip-offs they are conjuring up that negative impression of those on welfare and the Government has been doing that for 5 long years. That is the Government members’ raison d’être. They are very quick to pull up all of the ladders that they have to get to where they are but never to give them back to those who deserve them. Of course there is any amount of jargon and spin that that side of the House actually proposes to justify its position but none of it cuts any ice. In the end these kinds of proposals are quite heartless. They are heartless because of the way in which the Government gains purchase for its argument. The way in which it does that is to undermine a particular section of our society. It undermines the poor and the vulnerable in this particular area. That is not to say that this side of the House condones even for a minute those who defraud the system. But this side of the House would want all of those who defraud the State to be beneficiaries of the same standards as the poor. They are not.What we do find is that this Government for 5 long years has perpetrated a whole series of legislation based on this notion of welfare dependence which is its own creation and based on this notion of lifetime costs of welfare which is its own creation. Paradoxically the savings the Government makes are based on that particular calculation. Well nobody on this side of the House is duped by that rhetoric at all. We are still saying very clearly that those who abuse the State ought to be brought to justice. But I ask whether this is the way of doing it—by first conjuring up that image of the poor and the vulnerable because this is who they are—and I do not think that anybody living in the upper-class suburbs of our society are the targets here.The targets here are those who have probably got into a position by unfortunate circumstances whereby they have become dependent on somebody else who has taken advantage of them. These are the people who are our beneficiaries. What the State ought to be doing is showing an exceptional understanding—sorry Mr Deputy Speaker? OK? I thought that he was giving me a signal. Is it in order for the Deputy Speaker to give me a signal? I suppose it is yes. I think he was agreeing with me by shaking his head from side to side. I am happy for the Deputy Speaker to support what I am saying. That is much better. Would it not be better for us as a society to show a real understanding of those who are vulnerable and for those who find themselves in a position often bringing up children of being dependent on the State for a period of time to be extended the largesse of our great democratic society and the reasonably enormous wealth we have to ensure that those people and those children get the best start in life and that they make something of themselves which is what the system is designed to do? It was designed by my forebears on this side of the House and now over the last 5½ years or so it is being systemically demolished by members on that side of the House. This is another example of where they are trying to do that. But we on this side of the House will still not tolerate those who defraud the system.There are many many approaches that the State can take to be kind and generous and at the same time expect the standards that it deserves. This bill does not do that. In fact the regulatory impact statement alludes to that. There are a number of ways in which those who get caught in these types of confused relationships and in defrauding the State as well can be uncoupled assisted and regularised and for money to be recouped from those who have taken it from the State. There are much more humane and reasonable ways of doing it. The Associate Minister and that side of the House know how to do that. But that does not give them the political purchase that they require for their own supporters because their own supporters have been socialised into—and now have internalised—the language of welfare dependence and welfare fraud.It is not a huge sum of money that the Associate Minister Chester Borrows is trying to recoup through this mechanism but what will be its consequences? Those consequences have not been factored in. I just want to talk about this one point. What is a person—say a woman with two children—to do when they are totally dependent on a benefit and they are at the stage in life where they get into relationships and they get into friendships? The friendships develop into relationships. What if they make mistakes and somebody has taken advantage of their own status? How long are we as a State to allow them to have the space to have relationships that might be regularised and then become a conventional family if you like? What this bill does is actually point in a sense a negative finger at those families—in particular at those women I would imagine—who are trying to make something of themselves and who require the largesse of the State. They require understanding and they require an environment to be produced where the children will become good citizens and where they will get a good start in life. But no what we are trying to do in this bill is criminalise those offences. A $5000 fine and 12 months in jail for a mother with two kids who has made some bad decisions—that is the bottom line in this particular bill. How can that be a reflection of our collective soul in this particular State? It is not.So although we support this bill because of the message it gives about fraud we do that with a heavy heart. We do that with enormous reservations. We have not been able to convince the Government to do much other than make some provisions in this particular bill where the Ministry of Social Development is at least required to consider all factors. Thank you.