Mackey Moana: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19402] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to speak on the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development. I am glad the Minister mentioned the inordinate time that Judith Collins spent talking about seasonal work although it mirrors the inordinate time she spent talking about seasonal work during the select committee’s financial review of this ministry. Mrs Collins seems to think that putting people into seasonal work is one way of solving unemployment. But anyone who has done seasonal work—for example anyone who was a university student in the 1990s and found that seasonal work was all there was and had to take it—knows that it is extremely difficult work and not everybody will be capable of doing it. Now at a time of low unemployment many able-bodied workers are working so seasonal work might not be the solution that it once was in a time of high unemployment. 
But the real low point in the select committee arose when we were discussing Thai workers and Mrs Collins took to calling anyone who did not speak English illiterate. She asked whether it was true that illiterate people who came to our country could not speak English and therefore follow instructions. It had to be pointed out to her that not only do people from other countries often speak English but they are not illiterate just because they do not speak the same language as we do. 
The most striking aspect about this report from the Social Services Committee is what is missing from it. In reading through it one cannot find any reference to or section on the domestic purposes benefit. That omission really needs to be pointed out because after all the domestic purposes benefit has been targeted by the National Party as one to be attacked during this election. National says that we need to get people off the domestic purposes benefit but there is no mention of that benefit in this review of the Ministry of Social Development. In fact in the select committee not one question was asked by an Opposition member during the entire financial review. It came down to a Government member to talk about the sterling efforts of the ministry and the changes it had made in getting women—and men too because men are on the domestic purposes benefit—back into work when it suited them and more important when it was appropriate for their families. 
The policy of getting those people back into work has to be one of the most important ever implemented by that Minister and his ministry. With the casework approach these people are not treated as though they are a burden on society. There is an appreciation that raising children is difficult and carries with it financial costs but that it is even more difficult for a sole parent. There is acknowledgment that the State has a role to ensure that every child including a child from a sole-parent family has financial support to ensure that he or she has the same opportunities as children who are fortunate enough to have two parents supporting them. 
Although National members seem quite happy to talk to the media about the domestic purposes benefit and what National would do when they had an opportunity at the select committee to ask questions of the people who deal with these issues every day they had nothing to say. They know that the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit is going down. 
I take this opportunity to recognise the excellent work done by Mr Peter Hughes and all his staff at the Ministry of Social Development. He is an extremely capable chief executive in charge of a very capable ministry. There needs to be recognition by the House of their hard work over the last few years. 
Another policy that will make a big difference is the Sickness and Invalids Benefit Strategy whereby the focus is on what people can do rather than on what they cannot do. We want to ensure that people are on the correct benefit. If they need to be on a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit they will be put on that benefit and not on the unemployment benefit. If they are on a sickness benefit or invalids benefit they can get the tailored help they need. Too often in the past the focus was on what the person could not do. If a person’s job involved a lot of physical activity and the person suffered an injury and could not continue in that job he or she might go on to a sickness benefit or invalids benefit. But we should have thought of what else the person could do and maybe not in that area of work. 
It might be interesting to know how many of those on a sickness benefit or invalids benefit today are in this position because during the 1990s they did not go to a doctor when they should have or did not seek medical help because they could not afford it or because it was not accessible and then reached the point of no return. That is why primary health is so important. 
Report noted.