Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9917] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity—[ 
Interruption 
] This is not about you Hekia. This is not about you at all. 
Hekia Parata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that we have been told often enough that the word “you” is reserved for yourself the Speaker and it is not to be used in denigration by one speaker to another in this House. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will not have anyone speaking on this. The word “you” is not banned entirely. The word “you” is not acceptable when people are making incorrect references to the Speaker. The member who was speaking said “This is not about you” etc. and he named the person in the same sentence. In that particular context I find it acceptable. The “you” refers to the person named: the member Hekia Parata. The member said “This is not about you Hekia Parata”. It is quite clear from the sentence that it is not about me the Assistant Speaker. I want the member to reflect on this. I know emotions are running hot in this debate and that is good. I ask Mr Prasad to continue his contribution to the House. 
Todd McClay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker from the Opposition did not address Mrs Parata correctly; in fact he was far too familiar with her. We have often been told about that in this House and I ask you to correct him please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that I thought I heard him say “you Hekia Parata”. If I did not hear him correctly I say to the member who is about to speak that when he addresses members of the House he should do so correctly and by their proper address. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I do believe that I addressed the member both respectfully and correctly. I said— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The member should not refer to a matter that has been ruled on. I said the member is to continue with his speech so he should do that. He should not traverse the matter that has been covered by the point of order. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member who spoke previously Hekia Parata raised a whole series of points and raised them with some passion and I respect that. However there is nothing in the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill that addresses many of the points that the member makes—nothing at all. It is hyperbole and a kind of filibustering but it does not add to the argument at all. 
I do believe in a caring society. I do believe in one that invests in parents in families and in their children. I do believe in that kind of society. 
Paul Quinn 
: Talking about the benefits? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: What is the point that Mr Quinn would like to make? What is the point that the member is making? I will respond to him if he asks a question. What is the question you want to put to me? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a debating chamber. Points are to be addressed to the Chair. This is not a private conversation going backwards and forwards across the Chamber. I advise the member that he has 10 minutes to make a presentation on the matter. I invite him to continue with his address to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I have no difficulty with the notion of a society using its wealth to address the problems that are being experienced by members of that society. We should create the best possible environment for our children; it is what they will grow up in. The investment that we make will pay handsome dividends: they will make a contribution to our kind of society. We should use the resources of the nation State our taxpayer dollars to give our children the best start in life. I support the system. It is designed to make that investment particularly in those people who miss out from time to time. When there are lives that are less fortunate or that have gone wrong the wealth and resources of the State ought to be used to give those children and families the best possible start. Therefore I support the provision of a fair system of social assistance. No matter what it has taken that is the kind of system we have designed since 1935. By and large it has worked well. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Members opposite may be interested to note that I also support the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money when our farmers through droughts and floods require assistance. In the same way that our children will those farmers will pay a handsome dividend to the nation’s wealth. That is fine. I despise those who abuse the system. I have worked in the system and with many of the people in the system. They are wonderful people whose lives have gone awry but some do abuse the system. I will not spend a moment defending anybody who abuses that particular system. There are any amount of provisions to address those particular things. Let us use those provisions to address that issue. 
However when people find themselves in the situation of relying on social assistance to provide that assistance based on a moralistic expectation of what they must do in order to earn it—that they must live in a particular way in terms of their personal life—is to begin to expect from the most vulnerable something that we do not expect of ourselves. These are the people who are forgotten. National Governments have always picked on this particular sore in our society by making the vulnerable the target of our contempt and designing programmes to punish them. National Governments have done it time and time again and this bill does the same thing. This bill creates a climate where people begin to believe that somebody is taking their money away that taxpayers are the honest citizens and that anybody who receives assistance is somehow to be despised. Those who receive assistance become fair game: we pick on them and we punish them. They tend to be brown less educated than other people poor and those who have suffered violence. 
I do not understand what it is about the members opposite and those leaders in our society who have had the very type of assistance that I speak about. The Minister is a case in point. She put a hand up and received the kind of assistance that this society ought to give to any mum with a young child who finds herself in that particular situation. We need to give those people a hand up and give them space to go off and do the best that they can. Of course the Minister has done very well and I congratulate her on that. But what I do not understand is why the very same people become the most feral when they attack others like themselves. There are cases in point and we can name them but I will not do so in this Chamber. There is something about those people. They become very punitive towards people who are like themselves. They have somehow made good having had assistance and now they say we must punish those who find themselves in the same position. 
This Government is introducing a very old concept. It is the concept of the deserving poor. If the Minister does not understand that I hope she will get some advice on it. The deserving poor are those whom we rile against morally and we expect of them particular standards of behaviour. This is a Dickensian model. It was designed out of Victorian England when the Industrial Revolution took place. That society used whatever human resources it could to produce labour for the factories and the human carnage that was created was incredible. That is the kind of Dickensian England if you like that this Government and this bill take us back to. 
This bill is a mess. The Minister is really unclear. She sounds quite confused in terms of a logical development of ideas to address what she sees as problems in our welfare system particularly about what to do with those who are on domestic purposes benefits. Nobody disputes that work is something to be strived for. The term that has come up in relation to this bill and the unyielding pressure to get into work are nothing new. Steve Maharey talked about it. In fact the whole Working for Families package was a realisation that the best way to really help people is through work but it is not the only way. 
Todd McClay 
: It’s a very very good way though. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: There are those who require different types of assistance at different points in their development cycle. I hope that the member who is chipping in on the other side understands that but if he does not then he can easily be given a lesson on that particular point. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do you understand it? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: You bet I do I say to that member. I can give that member a lesson on this. I ask him which part of it he does not understand. 
This bill talks about providing a fairer society and a fairer system. Well I challenge the next speaker from the Government side to tell us what the components of that fairer system are. We have not heard that. We do not know how many people will come out of this particular status we do not know what the targets are and we do not know how they will be achieved. Somehow that is to be done by becoming as punitive as this set of provisions is towards solo parents etc. 
The current system is a very very good one. It has been highly highly successful and is one of the most successful in the world to get people back into work. Work and Income triages intensively. This is the same department that provided this service under the previous Government and did so very very well. Why does this Minister not believe that the system and that department can be as intensive as they were then in getting people into work? There is no need for any of these provisions. This is simply dog-whistle politics because it panders to those of the conservative ilk who somehow believe that people out there are stealing money from them. The National Government has created the figment that a huge amount of rorting is going on in our society and therefore it has developed a punitive mindset. In the end members opposite will regret this legislation because it will be their communities families whanau and whanui who will experience its effects. In the end people will be no better off because there is nothing great about a punitive society. How does the sanctions regime put children at the centre of our social intervention? The members opposite cry about the importance of children and of early intervention but when they get an opportunity to really screw them down they do that—and this bill does it. 
There is no need at all for this set of interventions. We have a very effective Work and Income which could work very intensively to address the concerns that members have. But no this bill is about the opinions of those who call talkback radio hosts.